Consumer complaint received 2016-08-22
Company: U.S. BANCORP
State: OH
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Complaint:
This is a follow-up complaint to an original complaint filed in XXXX and listed as case # XXXX. 

Upon submission of that complaint, U.S. Bank, the target of the complaint, replied back to the CFPB that the banks servicing agent, XXXX, was who the complaint should have been directed to, and after a phone from the CFPB to authorize the change to XXXX, I agreed with that new direction. 

However, I 've since received a letter ( attached ) from U.S. Bank that sheds new light on the ongoing fraud. 

In short, as part of that original complaint, U.S. Bank, as the successor trustee to XXXX XXXX XXXX, now admits that the Trust itself owns my Note and Mortgage, not the trustee, which is XXXX degrees contrary to the legal position that XXXX XXXX XXXX, and now by its role as successor trustee U.S. Bank took 11 years years ago to fraudulently file a Complaint in Foreclosure against my wife and I, and then to steadfastly defend the original lie through multiple court actions spanning more than a decade of legal disputes. 

It also contradicts the position that U.S. Bank 's own servicer recently stated in the attached letter. 

The core of the matter is that the original complaint that was filed by trustee XXXX Bank, which then was allegedly acquired by XXXX XXXX XXXX during the course of the litigation, stated in the court filings that it was the 'Owner and holder ' of the promissory Note involving my home loan, when we now know 11 years later that legal position was then and is now a complete and total fabrication in a fraudulent attempt to illegally foreclose on my house. 

While I admire U.S. Bank for finally admitting the ruse is up, the issue can not be swept under the rug, and the buck can not be passed to their servicer, XXXX 

Under the terms of the Consent Decree with the Comptroller of the Currency that that U.S. Bank signed in XXXX, the bank was required to take certain steps to ensure, among other stipulations, that under Article IV of the Decree, the bank must have : ( b ) processes to ensure that all factual assertions made in pleadings, declarations, affidavits, or other sworn statements filed by or on behalf of the Bank are accurate, complete, and reliable ; and that affidavits and declarations are based on personal knowledge or a review of the Bank 's books and records when the affidavit or declaration so states ; ( d ) processes to review and approve standardized affidavits and declarations for each jurisdiction in which the Bank files foreclosure actions to ensure compliance with applicable laws, rules and court procedures ; ( e ) processes to ensure that the Bank has properly documented ownership of the promissory note and mortgage ( or deed of trust ) under applicable state law, or is otherwise a proper party to the action ( as a result of agency or other similar status ) at all stages of foreclosure and bankruptcy litigation, including appropriate transfer and delivery of endorsed notes and assigned mortgages or deeds of trust at the formation of a residential mortgage-backed security, and lawful and verifiable endorsement and successive assignment of the note and mortgage or deed of trust to reflect all changes of ownership ; However, its now clear based on the attached letter from U.S. Bank that at the time it filed on XXXX XXXX, XXXX an 'Alias Praecipe ' for sale authorizing XXXX XXXX Sheriff to sell my home at a sheriff 's sale, that the bank knew or should have known that the ownership of the note and mortgage was not alignment with the original summary judgment in foreclosure ( see attached ), and the Affidavit was not made with personal knowledge ( attached ) since it named my wife on the Note even though she 's not, and as a result, should not have submitted the Praecipe to XXXX XXXX Court since that very act constitutes a breach of the Consent Decree, violates Federal law, and is prima facie evidence of fraud upon the court.

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