Consumer complaint received 2022-02-05
Company: Fidelity National Financial, Inc
State: MI
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed
Sub-issue: Debt is not yours

Complaint:
Complaint against Fidelity National Financial , Inc for making false statements to XXXX XXXX and violations of XXXX and XXXX. 

On XX/XX/XXXX someone acting as XXXX sent me flagrantly fake Modification and VA XXXX XXXX which should be returned to ServiceLink after recording at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX CA, XXXX. 

ServiceLink is a chain of shell nest doll corporations registered by Fidelity National Financial , Inc employees, mostly lawyer XXXX XXXX XXXX who was acting as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Knight or XXXX ) XXXX  who stated its place of business XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX FL XXXX, which is XXXX and XXXX XXXX address. 

All other employees of XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX. are also employees of XXXX and XXXX and collectively hold about XXXX various jobs within XXXX XXXX, from secretaries to Presidents. 

XXXX employees registered at least XXXX ServiceLink corporations in CA between XXXX time ; XXXX ServiceLink corporations in Michigan ; XXXX XXXX ServiceLink corporation in Florida ; total more than XXXX ServiceLink corporations over the Country, so it was unclear to which ServiceLink my documents must be returned -and by whom - after recording ; who authorized ServiceLink to accept these documents and what ServiceLink is going to do with these documents after receiving it from Recorders office. 

On XX/XX/XXXX I submitted my Complaint to ServiceLink to clarity which ServiceLink was mentioned as a recipient of my documents ; disclose who granted ServiceLink authority to accept my recorded Modification and VA XXXX and what ServiceLink employees are going to do with these documents after they receive them. To my surprise, this Complaint made a detour and went to XXXX instead of ServiceLink, like all following complaints. 

Thus this is fair to assume that unsigned responses from ServiceLink were prepared and filed by XXXX undisclosed to me employee and all services such as Title Report and other title related activities were performed by XXXX employees because ServiceLink exists in name only and operated by XXXX and XXXX personnel. 

The same Complaint was filed with XXXX who said that it is not related to them. 

On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX employee ( aka XXXX ) said : ServiceLink 's full corporate name is ServiceLink, LLC. It is a licensed title agency. ServiceLink was retained by XXXX to provide a title report to XXXX for property located at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, MI XXXX. If the modification agreement is signed, ServiceLink would also be retained, in its capacity as a licensed title agency, to record the modification agreement in the county real estate records for the county where the property is located. ServiceLink has no other involvement in the transaction described in the complaint. 

This respond did not address my questions if ServiceLink knew that their name was being used to assert functions that Servicelink does not perform. Second, this respond said that ServiceLink was already retained by XXXX to provide a Title report for my property but did not verify if Servicelink actually performed this Title report. 

According to XXXX Secretary of State ServiceLink, LLC was a dissolved on XX/XX/XXXX corporation located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX CA XXXX while my documents must be sent to unknown to me ServiceLink located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, which must be an active Corporation to accept these document. 

I resubmitted my Complaint with CFPB- which again went to XXXX XXXX 

On XX/XX/XXXX ServiceLink ( aka XXXX ) responded : ServiceLink is not, despite the complainants claim, performing sub-servicing activities on her loan. As stated in our prior response, ServiceLink was retained to perform title related activities in its capacity as a licensed title agency. ServiceLink is a national provider of title agency activities and is duly qualified to do business in Michigan, where this property is located, as ServiceLink, LLC and has been so qualified since XXXX. ServiceLink is not responsible for the content of any documents sent to the complainant and any questions related to the documents would need to be directed to her lender. 

This is true that ServiceLink, LLC was registered in Michigan on XX/XX/XXXX by XXXX lawyer XXXX XXXX as a XXXX XXXX for ServiceLink Title Company LLC, member of ServiceLink NLS, LLC which is a part of ServiceLink Holding , LLC, Pennsylvania XXXX under leadership of XXXX XXXX who report to XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Chairman of XXXX and XXXX XXXX after XXXX reorganization of the former XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( LPS ) businesses, the formation of a wholly-owned subsidiary called XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Knight ) and the issuance of a XXXX XXXX interest in each of XXXX Knights two operating subsidiaries, ServiceLink Holdings XXXX XXXX ( ServiceLink ) and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), to funds affiliated with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and certain related entities. XXXX XXXX, through ServiceLink and XXXX, now owns and operates the former XXXX businesses and XXXX ServiceLink business. XXXX core operating subsidiaries now consist of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX. 

But it is unclear why ServiceLink, LLC, Michigan corporation under management of ServiceLink Holding LLC, XXXX XXXXXXXX, both have no registration in California, demands to send my recorded documents to unknown to me ServiceLink in California and which ServiceLink should received these documents if here are XXXX companies registered in California by XXXX XXXX XXXX which bear ServiceLink name. 

On XX/XX/XXXX someone from XXXX responded to my complaint and said : XXXX subsidiary ServiceLink was retained by XXXX to provide title-related services for XXXX XXXX XXXX This has been explained in ServiceLinks prior response to XXXX XXXX CFPB complaints. Outside of those services, XXXX has had no involvement in the transaction at issue, and none of the individuals named within this CFPB complaint have had any involvement. As has been previously communicated to XXXX XXXX, XXXX and XXXX are separate publicly traded companies. 

All of these statements are lies. 

First, on XX/XX/XXXX XXXX said that my Complaint does not belong to them. But on XX/XX/XXXX XXXX said that XXXX 's subsidiary ServiceLink was retained by XXXX to provide title-related services for XXXX. Thus, this is much wider servicing activity than merely prepare Title Report as claimed by XXXX in its prior respond. 

Second, statement that outside of those services ( performing title-related activities ), XXXX has had no involvement in the transaction at issue is a lie. According to documents, my recorded Modification and Partial Claim must be returned to unknown by me ServiceLink in California, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, not to ServiceLink, LLC in Michigan or its manager ServiceLink Holding LLC in Pennsylvania. 

Moreover, my XX/XX/XXXX Application for alleged loan was received and processed in California by XXXX XXXX and ServiceLink and their involvement was concealed from me by forging XXXX disclosures where XXXX XXXX was removed. 

Third, statement that none of the individuals named within this CFPB complaint have had any involvement is a lie. ALLmentioned individuals are officers of all XXXX ServiceLink corporations in California and most of ServiceLink corporations in MI, FL, PA, GA and all other states. Moreover, they are likely the only employees for these empty shell ServiceLink nest doll corporations. 

Forth, statement that as has been previously communicated to XXXX XXXX, XXXX and XXXX are separate publicly traded companies is a double lie. 

Nobody communicated with me about XXXX and XXXX relationship since XXXX repeatedly refused to address my complaints as not related to them. 

According to XXXX XXXX statement to SEC on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX reorganization of its document forgery mill the former XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) businesses, the formation of a wholly-owned subsidiary called XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Knight ) and the issuance of a XXXX XXXX interest in each of XXXX Knights XXXX XXXX subsidiaries, ServiceLink Holdings , LLC ( ServiceLink ) and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), to funds affiliated with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX related entities. XXXX XXXX, through ServiceLink and XXXX, now owns and operates the former XXXX  businesses and XXXX ServiceLink business. FNFs core operating subsidiaries now consist of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX. 

In force-placed Flood Insurance on XX/XX/XXXX ServiceLink was stated as XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX who was acting under glimpse of XXXX. See attached. 

Thus, the real Servicer and Originator of my alleged loan with fake " Lender '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is XXXX acting though a chain of shell corporations XXXX XXXX and ServiceLink who are falsely presented as separate companies while they are all operated by the same XXXX executives under the same leadership, with the same main office location. 

Thus, XXXX, XXXX XXXX et al and ServiceLink are Servicers under RESPA and must disclose me requested information QWR questions : XXXX. Disclose full corporate name of California ServiceLink where my Modification and VA partial claim must be returned after recording at its XXXX location XXXX. Disclose name of my creditor who authorized ServiceLink to accept these documents after recording. 
XXXX. Disclose that ServiceLink is going to do with these documents when they receive them after recording XXXX. Disclose all title-related services ServiceLink performed in relationship to my property located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Disclose in which official capacity XXXX hired ServiceLink to perform title related services. Did XXXX claimed to be my existing Creditor or Lender? If not, did XXXX acted as an authorized representative of my Creditor? In which capacity? 
XXXX. Disclose name and contact information ( office address, phone number and email ) of XXXX authorized employee who hired ServiceLink, so I can contact this employee directly. 
XXXX. Disclose name, position and contact information for ServiceLink and XXXX employees who prepared and filed responses from XXXX and its subsidiary ServiceLink.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation