Consumer complaint received 2019-10-17
Company: Specialized Loan Servicing Holdings LLC
State: DC
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: Mortgage debt
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action
Sub-issue: Seized or attempted to seize your property

Complaint:
REFERENCE CASE NO. XX/XX/XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, IA XXXX Subject : SLS third -party mortgage loan servicer XX/XX/XXXX To : Whom it may concern, please refer to case numbers. SLS is a third-party collection agency that is unable to supply proof of debt. Initially Specialized Loan Service lied and said, they were the holder of the Note. The fact that SLS lied about who the holder of the Note reflects their knowledge of the fraud. SLS misrepresented themselves as the original lender collecting on behalf of a mortgage debt established in XX/XX/XXXX. After I filed a formal compliant with Cfpb, SLS than sent me a copy of my original Deed of trust ( the one I supplied the court ) with the account number written in pencil at the top. SLS is in breach of a cease and desist that went into effect on XX/XX/XXXX. 
Despite being unable to prove the debt, SLS has attempted to establish ownership of my Deed by paying my paid property taxes in XX/XX/XXXX. I am requesting that SLS request the payment be returned to SLS. I am also requesting that SLS stop harassing me and removes the negative comments, made by them, from my credit report. SLS has not establish or provided any proof they are serving my mortgage. Proof of debt was never provided. I can state with all certainty my Deed is not owned by any investors. I am the holder of the Note. XXXX XXXX failed to record the release of my mortgage in XX/XX/XXXX. SLS is a third- party collection agency acting in the capacity of a mortgage debt collector without proof of debt. I have attached several documents all of which provide and supply evidence supporting my claims made in my federal lawsuit. 
The document titled Independent Foreclosure Review, has been provided to support the claim : XXXX XXXX misrepresented the banks interest in the Plaintiffs property attempting to embezzle the plaintiffs Deed of Trust in XX/XX/XXXX. The Defendant ( XXXX XXXX ) has acknowledged the XX/XX/XXXX slander. The slander was made to try and secure legal conveyance authority, over the Plaintiffs Deed of Trust. The acknowledgement was bolstered upon with the false representation that the fraud was time-barred by the general three-year limitations period. 
The document dated XX/XX/XXXX and subject titled, issue with HUD Partial Claim document ( s ), has been provided to supply evidence to the claim : XXXX XXXX never processed a valid Partial Claims Promissory Note in XX/XX/XXXX, Not on XX/XX/XXXX or on XX/XX/XXXX. Please note the documentation was sent a year after the Defendant ( XXXX XXXX ) is claiming to have executed a Partial Claims Promissory Note and Second Mortgage Loan. Also, I never re-signed or submitted the documents requested. A copy of the unsigned document is attached. The Plaintiff is seeking to quiet her Title after learning her XX/XX/XXXX Partial Claims Note, was not processed by XXXX XXXX and determined to be invalid and render null and void in XXXX by FHA/ HUD . In XX/XX/XXXX the Partial Claims Note was nullified due to XXXX XXXX not having conveyance of the primary mortgage loan. The primary mortgage loan was released by XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX. 
The document dated XX/XX/XXXX and titled Notice of transfer of your mortgage, has been provided to supply evidence to the claim : XXXX XXXX attempts to create a legal conveyance instrument, one that would transfer ownership of the Plaintiffs Deed of Trust ultimately, clouded and invalidated the Plaintiffs Deed of Trust. The Plaintiff has been paying on a Note that does not exists. Subsequently, no release could ever have been granted by XXXX XXXX or Specialized Loan Servicing. Please note XXXX XXXX sent a notice in XX/XX/XXXX regarding the transfer of a Partial Claims Promissory Notice that was never processed in XX/XX/XXXX and was nullified by HUD in XX/XX/XXXX. See. Attachment dated XX/XX/XXXX. 

The document dated XX/XX/XXXX and titled Important information about your mortgage account, has been provided to supply evidence to the claim : The Plaintiff was being defrauded and sent contradicting documents that confirmed a conspiracy to commit fraud. The transactions which clouded the Plaintiffs Title to her property were deliberate and made by XXXX XXXX. The documents that XXXX XXXX presented to HUD/FHA were Nullified. No valid Deed or Deed of Trust was established between XXXX XXXX and the Plaintiff. It is well established that courts may hear a common law action to quiet title in order to prove title, secure title, or to remove obstacles which hinder its enjoyment. Jessup v. Progressive Funding, 35 F. Supp. 3d 25, 34 ( D.D.C. 2014 ) ( quoting in re Tyree, 493 A.2d 314, 317 ( D.C.1985 ) ). In a quiet title action, the plaintiff asks the court to declare that he or she has good title to the property in question and compels any adverse claimant to prove a competing ownership claim or forever be barred from asserting it. 65 Am. Jur. 2d Quieting Title 1. In  these actions, the Plaintiff has the burden of showing a title or right superior to that of the defendant as a prima facie case, which means that the plaintiff [ must ] at least prove a title better than that of the defendant, which, if not overcome by the defendant, is sufficient. Jessup, 35 F. Supp. 3d at 36. ( quoting 74 C.J.S. Quieting Title 77 ( 2014 ) ). If the defendant has established the due  execution of an instrument, the burden is again cast on the plaintiff to show facts in avoidance. 74 C.J.S. Quieting Title 77 ( 2014 ). On XX/XX/XXXX, Plaintiff, filed a quiet title action asking the court to declare that she has good title to real property owned by the Plaintiff in fee simple and located at XXXX XXXX, as per plat recorded in the office of the Surveyor for the District of Columbia. Property is described in the deed attached and labeled. See original complaint The Defendant, XXXX XXXX, soiled, clouded, and invalidated the Plaintiff Title. The removal of the obstacles placed on the Plaintiffs Title by XXXX XXXX is equitable in nature and law. Specialized Loan Servicing is harassing the Plaintiff and trying to pressure her into making payments before a judgement is made in her favor. The Plaintiff is requesting Specialized Loan Servicing pay 10xXXXX in punitive damages equal to the amount of damage being requested from XXXX XXXX XXXX

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation