Consumer complaint received 2016-01-14
Company: McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC
State: GA
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Complaint:
Associated with Complaints Case # s : XXXX and XXXX -XX/XX/XXXX, my wife and I applied for and obtained XXXX & XXXX Mortgages ( Home Equity Line Of Credit - HELOC ) from XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX now XXXX XXXX XXXX [ XXXX ] ) for the purchase of a home at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX , XXXX XXXX ( Account # XXXX : XXXX - XXXX ; XXXX - XXXX ). On XX/XX/XXXX, my wife and I applied for and refinanced the XXXX Mortgage from XXXX to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). As part of the refinance agreement, my wife and I agreed to Subordination Agreement See Attached : Affidavit of Existing Lien and Account Close-out Request dated XX/XX/XXXX ). XXXX agreed to refinance the XXXX Mortgage with XXXX if the XXXX Mortgage ( Home Equity Line of Credit [ HELOC ] ) was subordinated to the new XXXX Mortgage allowing XXXX to take XXXX Lien position on the property. 
-XXXX completed the refinance transaction using a Satisfaction of Mortgage with the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX ( XXXX ) date XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX does not record Transactions from Originator ( XXXX ) to Sponsor or Sponsor to Depositor. XXXX only shows Trustee. Since the State Law of XXXX requires that every true sale be recorded all the way through each Transaction in Pipeline, Sale to Trustee. Hence, the transaction between XXXX and XXXX is invalid since previous sales were not recorded. The subordination of the XXXX HELOC to the new XXXX Mortgage allowing XXXX to take XXXX Lien position on the property was never completed. Thus, XXXX had no authority over the Note for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX GA XXXX and had no Legal Right to Foreclose on the homeowner. If home was foreclosed or subject of transaction by Trustee ( XXXX ), but Note went through MERS ; XXXX 's foreclosure has no Legal Authority, thus considered a Fraudulent Transaction or Foreclosure. Therefore the Lien Validity and position were not properly verified by as part of the Foreclosure process undertaken by McCalla Raymer who served as the attorneys for XXXX for the Foreclosure. 
-Complainants commence this complaint alleging fraud, fraudulent inducement, breach of promise & violations of General Business Law ( " GBL '' ) 349, known as the Deceptive Practices Act against XXXX XXXX XXXX . In addition to compensatory and punitive damages, complainants seek a declaration that the Affidavit of Existing Lien and Account Close-out Request for a Subordination dated XX/XX/XXXX and Satisfaction of Mortgage with XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXX by XXXX XXXX XXXX on behalf of complainants as null & void, and to enjoin the enforcement of the notes & mortgages as unenforceable against complainants. 
-XX/XX/XXXX, the US Deptartment of Justice ( USDOJ ) announced a XXXX settlement with XXXX over discriminatory lending practice at XXXX . USDOJ also found that XXXX discriminated against qualified XXXX & XXXX borrowers from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX - minority borrowers who qualified for prime loans were steered into higher-interest-rate subprime loans. Further, the XXXX in XXXX XXXX reached a XXXX settlement with XXXX to resolve Federal XXXX State claims against XXXX & its former & current subsidiaries, including XXXX & XXXX XXXX. As part of this global resolution, XXXX agreed to pay a $ XXXX penalty under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery & Enforcement Act ( FIRREA ) and provide XXXX dollars of relief to struggling homeowners, including funds that will help defray tax liability as a result of mortgage modification, forbearance or forgiveness. The settlement does not release individuals from civil charges, nor does it absolve XXXX, its current or former subsidiaries & affiliates or any individuals from potential criminal prosecution.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation