Consumer complaint received 2022-12-26
Company: SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.
State: CA
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process

Complaint:
Dear SPS, You are not answering my question. At the time of origination of my transaction, I reasonably believed that I was paying for the establishment of a loan account on the ledgers of a lender, whose name appeared on the note and lien. 

I am not asking you for the owner of the " account, '' unless you mean the unpaid loan account on the ledgers of a lender or successor lender, who has paid value for the obligation you claim is due from me to XXXX XXXX. Despite my many questions directed at this issue, I keep receiving unsigned letters that do not appear to be coming from SPS. The content of those letters is evasive at best. 

I am asking for the owner of the unpaid loan account that can be corroborated by an accounting ledger that keeps track of the establishment of the lower account, and all debits and credits that have been made to the loan account from the date of origination through this date. The correspondence that I am receiving implies that XXXX XXXX now maintains that accounting ledger, which contains the unpaid loan account that is alleged to exist. 

The answer contained in the letter I received, which bears the date of XX/XX/2022, makes an obvious attempt to distract from my question and rephrase it as merely an inquiry about the identity of an investor, creditor or note holder. A note holder, as I have previously repeated, is the person who possesses the original note or had a right to such possession. But the possessor in not a " holder '' under Chapter 3 UCC as adopted by state law verbatim, unless that holder has been authorized to enforce. 

That is where you are being evasive. Authorization can only come from one who is legally possessed of rights that serve as the foundation for an authorization. Based upon the prior responses to my inquiries and the probable answer to this inquiry I am assuming that neither SPS has had any contact with or authorization from such an authorized person. Accordingly the designation of SPS as a servicer is untrue and perhaps even fraudulent. 

The only legally authorized persons who possess a financial interest and ownership of the alleged note, if it still exists, is the lat person who paid for the underlying obligation that is repeatedly asserted but never shown. Under existing law ( RESPA and FDCPA ) as previously cited, the person who responds to this letter is required to provide the answer. In the absence of such a person, there is no reason to believe that SPS is acting at all much less acting for a party in interest who has paid value in good faith for the debt, note or lien. 

I conclude therefore, unless your response addresses this issue directly that no person, company or other party asserts nor can they corroborate that SPS is acting as an authorized agent for the owner of the implied unpaid loan account due from me and that the author of the responses to my previous requests have been sent either by machine ( computer ) without any human action or intervention or by a human with no knowledge and only a script. 

This is your last opportunity to avoid litigation. In the litigation, the matters at issue will penetrate down into the recesses of the false implication of securitized debt. No debt of mine was ever sold and I know that because you have failed and refused to provide me with any corroboration, such a transaction exists. 

I will seek declaratory, injunctive ( mandatory and prohibitive ) relief, statutory and actual compensatory damages, attorney fees, costs, and expenses of forensic experts without whose help your scheme might have succeeded. 
Regards, XXXX XXXX

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