Consumer complaint received 2017-10-09
Company: Quality Loan Service Corporation
State: CA
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: I do not know
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action
Sub-issue: Seized or attempted to seize your property

Complaint:
Foreclose means its been paid and closed. 

Now just remember forgery in California someone that claims any paperwork or sent by mail or otherwise such as XXXX just did and many times along with Quality Loan Servicing Corp. and XXXX XXXX .... The arrest warrants have been issues along with a defaulted Bill. Agent to Principle, Principle to Agent. Sheriff and Police have been notified and have been served In home town. 
California Penal Code 115 a is Felony 10 years in prison for Forgery ... It is on District Attorney desk. Oh by the way XXXX XXXX and XXXX is not bonded to do business in California ... 
XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXYou can not service loans or use the word servicer under a IRS Bulletin 544 Installment sale and 1122 AB Material Violation Select Pretend Services Transfers and servicing of financial assets - XX/XX/XXXX - Sale of mortgage servicing rights with a subservicing ... 
Regulation AB mortgages, installment loans, minimum lease payments under sales-type and Nonrecognition of transferred financial assets Read ASC 860 and SFAS 140-3 Non nonrecognition rules -What Mortgage, Its gone for bond then no more mortage Violates 1122 AB under the SEC once you divest your collateral its gone, bye bye so what are they foreclosing on? 
THERE IS NO MORTGAGE Example ... 
Note : Based upon 10 years of work as a XXXX XXXX and investigation into dozens of other cases in which these parties have asserted nonexistent rights to purported loans, defendant believes that the trust does not exist, that no transaction ever occurred in which the name of the trust was used to purchase the alleged subject loan, that XXXX XXXX has no authority as trustee or agent for anyone who does own the alleged subject loan, and that XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, possesses no right, title or interest in the subject loan nor any right of administration of the loan on behalf of of any party meeting the definition of an actual beneficiary under a deed of trust. 
Or the claims of ownership or authority arise from a party or trust that never entered into any transaction under which such a party or trust purchased the putative subject loan nor any transaction in which such a party or trust purchased the rights to enforce the debt, note, or deed of trust.whether XXXX XXXX has any legal authority in a representative, agency, or trustee capacity and further whether the self-proclaimed servicer for the implied trust has any legal authority to administer the putative subject loan. 
* Based upon circumstantial evidence and disclaimers published by all the parties who seem to think they have an interest in foreclosing the subject property, the answer to all of the questions is No. This accounts for the obfuscation in discovery which would reveal the truth quite easily and simply. 
* Accordingly, defendant served discovery upon the attorneys for the putative plaintiff. Simple logic dictates that if the trust does not in fact exist or if the trust exists but never acquired the putative subject loan, then the plaintiff does not exist, ( or it has no legal standing ), the attorneys do not have a client, XXXX XXXX has not stated a basis for being named in this action, and the self-proclaimed servicer is deriving its apparent authority from a nonexistent trust.The action is brought in the name of an implied trust, for which XXXX XXXX is designated as trustee. An implied trust can not be Plaintiff or Petitioner or party to any legal action. Besides lacking legal standing it lacks legal existence. And without an existing trust, the mere naming of oneself as trustee does not create or refer to a trust unless a trust actually exists.So faced with an unlawful detainer action by a trust that does not exist but whose name was used as the source of a credit bid at auction one intrepid homeowner has been keeping the bank and the Trust and the servicer at about for around 10 years. Each step of the way the judges were effectively bamboozled into thinking that this was a case of XXXX XXXX versus Homeowner who doesnt pay his bills. The reference to being a Trustee was merely to imply the existence of a Trust without ever actually saying the trust exists. 

And before I get started, take note : If I pay the fees I can file fake articles of incorporation or a fake trust instrument with the SEC. Once that is done, I ask for judicial notice of the corporation and the judge, along with the foreclosure defense lawyer, will most times agree that the entity exists. Our analysis here of the chain of title clearly shows that in many if not most cases, the at least one of the entities involved never actually existed. This is particularly true of so-called XXXX Trusts. 

Look at the wording very carefully. It is their Achilles heel : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, AS TRUSTEE, FOR XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, HOME EQUITY MORTGAGE ASSET-BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, XXXX XXXX

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