Consumer complaint received 2020-02-27
Company: Kass Shuler, P.A.
State: FL
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage

Complaint:
Property Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX Complaint against : Kass Shuler Law Firm XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX, FL XXXX Please cross-reference Complaint # XXXX to see how these complaints are related to each other. 


As we are preparing to file a Federal Complaint, I am requesting an investigation into the practices of the Law Firm of Kass Shuler. I believe that we have been a victim of Deceptive and Unfair Trade, Fair Debt Collection and Fair Credit Reporting and they play a major role in facilitating these violations. Also, this information is also being submitted to FHFA-Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Comptroller of the Currency-Inspector General and other federal agencies. 

The reason for the reivew of Kass Shuler Law Firm is due to their propensity to misrepresent facts to the Courts and ultimately, the taxpayers. There are three issues that have necessitated this request. First, the concealment of the true investor ( XXXX XXXX ) rendered participation in HARP unavailable. Secondly, all parties involved in this fraudulent scheme are in violation of the Dodd Frank Act which forbids committing unfair, deceptive or abusive acts/practices with regards to debt collection. The FDCPA applies to the attorneys involved in this case. Lastly, Kass Shuler was legal counsel on another wrongful foreclosure in XXXX. The law firm sent letter to the home stating XXXX XXXX owned the property but in court filings stated that XXXX XXXX XXXX owned the property. 
In additio, I have attempted to resolve these issues by requesting meeting with my servicer, XXXX XXXX XXXX. See Complaint # XXXX. As of today, they have not contacted me. Therefore, I am submitting new complaints to connect the dots on a deliberate attempt to steal our property thru wrongful foreclosure. I will continue to provide the various complaint numbers for each submission. There is a possible RICO pattern for the servicers and its legal counsel. 
Based on our information, we are preparing to file a Federal lawsuit for the numerous FDCPA violations along with Fraud upon the Courts. 

Timeline of Events XXXX XX/XX/XXXX 1st and 2nd Mortgages were originated and closed by XXXX XXXX. The first mortgage received an automated approval thru XXXX XXXX -- -XXXX  XXXX automated loan approval system. 
XX/XX/XXXX Loans transferred to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  -- XXXXan Investment Bank . The 1st mortgage is a XXXX XXXX loan. ( Exhibit 1 ). XXXX XXXX business model outlines that their loans are either 1 ) securitized in a mortgage-backed security or 2 ) held on the books of XXXX XXXX. The HMDA report sheds light on this issue. 
As of XX/XX/XXXX, the investor in our mortgage became : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  See : XXXX XXXX Mortgage Interest Statements ) Exhibit 2 See : XXXX Consent Order Exhibit 3 XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX begins servicing our 1st and 2nd mortgage. Exhibit 4 XXXX XX/XX/XXXX The Consent Order # XXXX was signed between Federal Government, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  aka XXXX XXXX. Section II of the Order reveals that an agreement between XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX existed between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. During this time, XXXX XXXX provided services but XXXX XXXX funded the loans. See Excerpt from the Order. ( Exhibit 2 ) II.  BACKGROUND XXXX XXXX is a wholly-owned subsidiary of XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX. It is a federal savings bank with its principal place of business at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Delaware. XXXX is a wholly-owned subsidiary of XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, Pennsylvania. Between approximately XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, pursuant to an agreement between XXXX XXXX and XXXX, XXXX provided various services for loans that were made and funded by XXXX XXXX. 

XXXX XXXX never funded or owned our loans******* Therefore, every document recorded after XXXX is a fraud. To alledge anything else will be contrary to what the DOJ along with XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX signed off in XXXX. 
XXXX XX/XX/XXXX The Consent Order # XXXX was signed by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ( OCC ) and XXXX XXXX  along with its Servicing subsidiaries. The Consent Order acknowledged that XXXX service loans for the XXXX XXXX aka XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX. It also states that HSB filed numerous affidavits asserting ownership of the note and mortgage when that was not the case. Exhibit 5 The Order required the correction of this failure and addressing the financial harm caused to borrowers. 
Unfortunately, none of the corrective remedies has ever taken place with us in more than six years. In XX/XX/XXXX, the OCC terminated the mortgage servicing restrictions. 
XX/XX/XXXX In opposition to compliance with the Consent Order, XXXX begins the creation of assignments and powers of attorney merely create the illusion of a transaction that never occurred. Six years beginning in XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX  XXXX with the assistance of XXXX XXXX attempts to create a marketable chain of title by recording three ( 3 ) fabricated Assignment of Mortgages ( AoM ). The fraudulent assignments purported that XXXX XXXX thru MERS transferred ownership to XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX continued to conceal that we should be afforded an opportunity to apply for HAMP. We applied for a modification at least six ( 6 ) times only to be told that we did not qualify for their in house product. Exhibit 6 What XXXX did not know was that I was a Certified Foreclosure Prevention Counselor. I emailed XXXX the program guidelines and financial worksheet showing that we qualified but they never acknowledged or offered assistance. 

XX/XX/XXXX A fraudulent Assignment of Mortgage was recorded by MERS on behalf of XXXX XXXX to assign to the loan to XXXX XXXX  XXXX. Four issues stand out : 1 ) MERS can not act upon behalf of a non-existent entity. MERS has given sworn testimony that they have no economic interest and have nothing to transfer. XXXX XXXX ceased to exist as of XX/XX/XXXX. 2 ) XXXX XXXX  XXXX is a mortgage servicing entity not an investor. 3 ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX   was an investment bank in this transaction. 4 ) There is an undated XXXX attached to the note. Exhibit 6 XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Another Assignment of Mortgage was recorded thereby assigning the loan to XXXX Master Participation Trust from XXXX XXXX  XXXX. ( Exhibit ) A review of the Assignment of Mortgage begs an answer to why would XXXX ( mortgage servicer ) have XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( another mortgage servicer ) sign as its power of attorney. Isnt XXXX as servicer paid a fee to execute paperwork? The disclosures by XXXX XXXX for this trust states that XXXX issues and guarantees the mortgage participation certificates. There is no recorded assignment to XXXX XXXX in XXXX Countys official records. So, how validates what I have said since XXXX that our loan was a XXXX XXXX product and failure to acknowledge has been emotionally and financially damaging. Exhibit 7 THE KASS SHULER CONNECTION SINCE XXXX In the beginning of this complaint, I referenced propensity for Kass Shuler to misrepresent ownership. A review of the complaint filed in XXXX alleges that mortgage servicer, XXXX XXXX XXXX was the investor and servicer. ( Exhibit ) Nothing in the recorded chain of title gives ownership to XXXX XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX. But the facts are different than the allegations presented in the court documents by XXXX XXXX XXXX and Kass Shuler. 
Timeline of Events XX/XX/XXXX Loan originated as a XXXX XXXX product. Exhibit 8 Between XXXX and XXXX The loan was dual tracked as we sought a HAMP modification but was told on numerous occasions that loan was not a XXXX XXXX product. 

XX/XX/XXXX Foreclosure Complaint filed by XXXX XXXX XXXX fraudulently alleging ownership of the loan. Exhibit 9 XX/XX/XXXX Kass Shuler send a letter to the property disclosing that XXXX XXXX owns the loan. At this time, Kass Shuler and XXXX XXXX XXXX were advising the courts of one thing but mailing documents contrary to such. Exhibit 10 Since XXXX, how many times has this law firm misrepresented facts? I can verify at least twice.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation