Consumer complaint received 2017-02-14
Company: SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.
State: FL
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Complaint:
I hereby XXXX XXXX, files this complaint for the following violations : 1. Violations of Florida Statutes " standing '' rules to enforce note and mortgage 2. Sham Foreclosure complaint 3. Forged affidavits in connection with a lost note affidavit 4. Failure to process loan modification request and the time allow to submit documents In a foreclosure action, a " plaintiff must prove that it had standing to foreclose when complaint was filed. XXXX ( XXXX ). A party must prove it has " standing '' to bring a mortgage foreclosure complaint by " establishing '' an assignment or equitable transfer of the note and mortgage prior to instituting the complaint ''. XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( XXXX ). 

The plaintiff in this case filed the XXXX in XXXX. Florida statutes pertaining to standing to sue have been established for over 100 years. Florida case law explains in XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), in order to have standing the " original '' lender must also have standing at the time the complaint was filed. The record shows that XXXX XXXX XXXX, the original lender did not have standing at the time the plaintiff filed the lawsuit because XXXX XXXX have been " terminated " since XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. 

The Florida XXXX defines a " holder '' to be the person in possession of a negotiable instrument thetas payable either to bearer or to an identified person that is in possession XXXX ( XXXX ). The last page of the note reveals no endorsement whatsoever. Neither the records reveals any assignment of mortgage from XXXX XXXX XXXX ( original lender ) to XXXX, XXXX, or Select Portfolio Loan Servicing LLC. 

Under Florida statutes a plaintiff can also prove standing by submitting an affidavit of lost note, however the affidavit must reflect endorsement payable to the plaintiff. The record reveals that the affidavit made by XXXX XXXX does not referenced to whom the note was payable to because it failed to reflect any endorsement. Therefore the note was never negotiated or made payable to the Plaintiff. 

The affidavit was not executed by XXXX XXXX. A copy of the notary application from the State of Utah reveals that XXXX XXXX did not executed the lost note affidavit executed by the well known ROBO signer XXXX XXXX. The signature of XXXX XXXX reflected on the affidavit by XXXX does not correspond to the signature reflected on the Notary application. Notaries must signed the application twice to establish their handwriting. The record reveals is not a match. Select Portfolio Loan Servicing brought fraud upon the court which warrants a dismissal with prejudice according to Florida case Law as matter of law. 

Select Portfolio claims to have denied our mortgage request dated XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. The record reveals we applied in XXXX XXXX and not in XXXX XXXX. The reason select portfolio servicing claims to have receive application on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX is for the sole purpose to allegedly establish we did not comply with document within the time allowed. Select Portfolio servicing complaint will be forward to the Office of the inspector general for further law enforcement action. We are requesting law enforcement that XXXX and XXXX be brought to justice in this case for submitting fraudulent documents in connection with a foreclosure action. The judge presiding in this case should also be investigate and is another reason the final judgment was entered despite of the insufficient proof of standing and the forged documents to be admitted into evidence. Florida Judges cite with plaintiff whether or not have standing and the matter has gone too far in this state.

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