Consumer complaint received 2018-02-22
Company: Ocwen Financial Corporation
State: FL
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage

Complaint:
As the servicer for XXXX XXXX, Ocwen Loan Servicing directed and continued these fraudulent actions that led to a wrongful foreclosure on my property after purchasing by an void/invalid alledged promissory note to my property in XX/XX/XXXX : I attempted to work out a modification with XXXX XXXX XXXX but as the only borrower on the loan was told the bank would not use my spouse 's income. During this time I learned that no legally valid transfer of her Assignment of Deed of Trust to my property had taken place. The mortgage has been securitized and the real holder of her note while not readily identifiable is not XXXX XXXX. Further, the bank filed an Assignment of Deed of Trust executed by XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, a known Robo-signer who signed as a XXXX vice president, a false and deceptive practice. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX v. XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX. Further, XXXX lacked standing as they have never proven holdership of the note at any time and can not transfer something it doesn't possess. Further the bank executed the Assignment of the Deed of Trust in XX/XX/XXXX, having initiated the foreclosure in XX/XX/XXXX for XXXX XXXX a defunct company since XXXX. The alleged " promissory note '' is included in the class action settlement of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, et al., v. XXXX XXXX, XXXX, et al., as a stock certificate and bank is a New York based company, subject to the laws of New York. 
I have attached the complaint filed by Attorney General XXXX XXXX ; people of the state of XXXX v. XXXX XXXX ( No. XXXX ), ( Exhibit 1 ) that outlines the exact same fraud committed on my mortgage beginning on page 25 and clearly shows that the bank has no holdership rights to my property. 
The bank claims via Assignment of the Deed of Trust filed in the XXXX County Court House that XXXX allegedly transferred my mortgage to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, As Trustee Rali XXXX, but as stated by Attorney General XXXX in the complaint ( page 23 thru 41 ), " XXXX concedes in its own procedures manual that it " can not transfer the benefits right to the debt and its terms of membership acknowledge that the XXXX system is not a vehicle for creating or transferring beneficial interest in mortgage loans. '' Thus, the assignment executed by XXXX and its certifying officer XXXX XXXX who is an employee of the servicer XXXX  XXXX XXXX lacked the authority to transfer the note to the foreclosing party. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX v. XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX v. XXXX , Index No. XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX Order ( N.Y. Sup. Ct. ) and XXXX XXXX  XXXX v. XXXX , XXXX XXXX XXXX, at XXXX ( N.Y. Sup . Ct. XX/XX/XXXX ). Where the presiding judge stated " MERS can not transfer something it never proved it possessed. '' ( People of the State of N.Y. v. XXXX XXXX ( No. XXXX ), pg. 25 ). 
The Assignment of the Deed of Trust on the borrowers property filed by the bank bears this same false transfer of assignment. ( Exhibit 2 ). As a further example of a false and deceptive practice on page 25 of Attorney General XXXX 's Complaint, XXXX  XXXX XXXX was the Servicer and their employee executed the problematic transfer assignment as a XXXX certifying officer. The original Notice of Foreclosure action initiated on my property was XX/XX/XXXX, but the date the " retroactive assignment '' was filed ( executed ) by the Defendant was XX/XX/XXXX. However, the bank was granted an Order to foreclose never proving XXXX  had possession of my promissory note or the right to transfer it. ( pg. 25 ). 
The Defendant is subject to the laws of New York and there are numerous decisions where the state of New York has vacated a judgment of foreclosure and sale where a " XXXX '' certifying XXXX executed a retroactive mortgage assignment. ( See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX v. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Dept. XX/XX/XXXX ) ( No standing where MERS executed assignment at least XXXX months after foreclosure action filed. ), the date of filing is controlling. Attorney XXXX spells out how this behavior deceives borrowers as well as the courts. 
The assignment was filed approximately 2 years after the bank-initiated foreclosure with a retroactive assignment of the deed of trust execute XX/XX/XXXX. Foreclosure action was initiated XX/XX/XXXX. The date of the assignment is the controlling factor ( pg. 27 ). The complaint goes on to list multiple examples of fraudulent and unfair and deceptive trade practices that exist in my mortgage and make it clear that XXXX XXXX  has no interest in my property or that they legally possess the right to foreclose. 
The banks assignment of transfer where XXXX  purports to act as nomine for XXXX XX/XX/XXXX when the transfer was executed in XX/XX/XXXX, but XXXX XXXX  was defunct as of XX/XX/XXXX. Here the Defendants use of " XXXX '' to transfer the assignment of the property has no validity as neither XXXX nor the entity they purport to act on behalf of had any interest in the mortgage at the time of the alleged assignment. ( People of the State of N.Y. v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), pg. XXXX, # XXXX ). See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXX, at XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ). See XXXX XXXX XXXX v. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, at XXXX ( N.Y. Sup . Ct. XX/XX/XXXX ) pg. 27 # XXXX. 
These unfair and deceptive acts culminated in an Appeals hearing on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX I was told by Judge XXXX on day 2 of an Appeals hearing that this was no longer an Appeals hearing but a new trial and that he would not consider the evidence from the hearing that was being appealed and that any errors or mistakes made in the Clerks office no longer applied. On day one of that trial Attorney XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX began passing out new mortgage documents claiming that they were now the new certified original copies of promissory note and mortgage documents with undated allonges. These were not the same documents used to obtain the order to foreclose on XX/XX/XXXX and despite my objections, XXXX XXXX ruled that this was " fine ''. Also note the alleged Allonges presented by the bank don't properly identify the property or borrower and both are undated. ( Exhibit 3, Witness Statement ). The Clerks office made multiple errors of law and denied my due process rights, allowing the Lender to send an attorney to a hearing on XX/XX/XXXX that was not affiliated with their firm or the case to act as if she were the trustee. 
I pointed this out to the Clerk as both the Trustee and Lender failed to appear, defaulting as they had done multiple times before over a 3-year period and were granted ex-parte continuances, I requested to be heard on a Motion to Dismiss and the Clerk refused to hear it and forced us to attend a continued hearing on XX/XX/XXXX, where the same clerk allowed the bank to use this fraudulent documentation and granted them the order to foreclose. ) See Clerks continuance where he states, " The Lender directed this case was cancelled or on hold ''. It appears the clerk acted under the direction of the bank. 
Further, I submitted a forensic report which supports our claim that the bank has no holdership of our property and that the fraud committed is identical to the fraud in Attorney General XXXX 's complaint. Further, as XXXX XXXX is subject to the laws of New York it appears they knowingly crossed state lines and continued actions that have been ruled invalidated multiple times in New York. Further, Plaintiffs have noted cases in North Carolina with the same or less evidence that the bank lacked holdership such as XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, Dated XX/XX/XXXX, Recorded in Book XXXX, Page XXXX in the XXXX County Registry. XXXX County XXXX. XXXX XXXX  XXXX and XXXX XXXX v. XXXX XXXX in North Carolina, in these cases the borrowers prevailed. 
These violations are covered under North Carolina G.S. 75-1.1, GBL 349, Executive Law and 63 ( 12 ). The bank executed false, deceptive or legally invalid or defective mortgage assignment in this  foreclosure proceeding. That is invalid in both New York and the state of North Carolina. The bank used a non-employee XXXX " certifying officer '' to execute a foreclosure related document on the behalf of XXXX. The evidence is clear that the defendant has no legally valid holdership of my property.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation