My servicer Bayview has made misrepresentations in writing not only to me but also to the California AG, DBO and the CFPB. I filed a complaint against Bayview in XXXX because of issues I had with them relating to litigation, improper service transferring, and having proof of ownership through title. The complaint number was XXXX, and I have attached their response to this complaint. I have highlighted the section where Bayview " admits '' that there are title issues and at this time they do NOT have clear title and are not in a position to collect payments, let alone set a sale date. In the same paragraph Bayview notes that they did NOT file an NOD on this property on XXXX XXXX, that I was mistaken, and the NOD that was filed was an old one from XXXX from XXXX. Finally, Bayview stated that there was no sale date and they could not schedule a new sale date because they did not have clear title. This is due to the fact that my property was illegally deeded to a third party XXXX XXXX and they recorded a false sale and grant deed and tried to steal the house. 
I was trying to short sale the home at that time ( XXXX ) and caught this while trying to open title. I then worked with the XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX to assist litigation so that they could retain their asset, and moved back into the property as their counsel suggested. While in litigation XXXX XXXX XXXX assured me that due to my cooperation that they would work with me to modify the loan as soon as the matter was settled. By that time my business had rebounded and I was able to afford a fair payment. However, I was not allowed to make any payments because of the active litigation, and after the loan was transferred to XXXX it was the same situation where I worked together with their counsel to assist them so that BONY and XXXX could retain the asset ( my home ) and get it back into their name. Once again, I was told that I was not allowed to make payments but that XXXX would do everything in their power to offer a modification at the end of the process due to my cooperation and improved financial status. 

While still in litigation and negotiation for a modification with XXXX the loan was transferred to Bayview. In the XXXX XXXX complaint I noted that I had not been notified of the service transfer and that I had never received a decision on my modification package. Since the time of the complaint Bayview has engaged with me and a package was submitted to them via mail in early XXXX. I was under the impression that title was still not clear, they did not have the legal right to foreclose or set a sale date etc. 

In the past week I received a notice of sale for XXXX XXXX. I spoke with my account manager at Bayview who claimed that my package for modification review had never been received, so I re-sent everything electronically directly to him on XXXX XXXX. Here are the misrepresentations made by Bayview We do not have clear title and are still working out this issue. We do not have the legal right to foreclose and will not schedule a sale date -NOTICE OF SALE FOR XXXX XXXX POSTED ON MY DOOR -- LESS THAN 30 DAYS NOTICE We are working through the title issue and may need your cooperation to get this matter cleared up. NO  COMMUNICATION OR NOTIFICATION THAT THE TITLE ISSUE WAS CLEARED UP -- JUST A NOTICE OF SALE We did not file a NOD nor post it on your door on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, you are mistaken, that is an NOD from XXXX that was generated by SPS-FALSE, I HAVE ATTACHED THE COPY OF THE NOD AND IT WAS GENERATED ON XXXX WHILE BAYVIEW SERVICING WAS HOLDING THE LOAN Bayview is engaging in dual tracking and attempting to set a sale date without completing a review of my current and correct financial information in violation of California HBOR rules and they have not provided proof they hold title and have posted an NOS with less than 30 days notice.