On XX/XX/XXXX it was implied to a District Court Judge, that Bayview Loans Servicing LLC ( Bayview ) had filed suit against me for foreclosure on XX/XX/XXXX in the XXXX Judicial District in XXXX XXXX, NM. The originator of my loan was XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). XXXX had failed to apply my payments, and returned multiple payments, claiming that I owed unauthorized and illegal fees. In fact, in one instance XXXX wrote me and told me that it had charged me fees for both properties when in fact I only owed one ( 1 )  property. To make matters worse, even with XXXX returning my payments in contravention of the loan contract, I had made thousands of dollars in advance payments to my loan. In other words, after paying thousands of dollars in early payments there is no possible way that my loan could have been in default at the time Bayview now claims it was in default even after XXXX failed to apply my subsequent payments. This means that either Bayview did not review competent loan information or Bayview ignored the circumstances of my loan prior to filing the unlawful suit against me. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was sued by the Federal Trade Commission for the very conduct it had engaged in regarding my loan. That lawsuit resulted in a Federal Court Order issued by the United States District Court Central District of California onXX/XX/XXXX The Federal Court Order in effect until XX/XX/XXXX, Restrained and Enjoined XXXX and its successors and assigns ( allegedly Bayview ) from filing suit against me under the circumstances of my loan. See Exhibit A at Section VI.
Bayview is not a bank as defined by the Federal Court Order. See, Exhibit A at Definitions 3. Bayview has violated a Federal Court Order by filing a lawsuit against me after the Court had restrained and enjoined it from doing so.
Here, Bayview either failed to review competent and reliable evidence regarding the circumstances of my loan or ignored that evidence which clearly demonstrates that XXXX failed to apply my payments and ignored my written dispute regarding its failure. In further violation of the Court Order, Bayview failed to resolve or even address the dispute with my loan which included numerous written notices beginning on XX/XX/XXXX, and concluded with a written notice of Breach and Termination dated XX/XX/XXXX. Bayview continues to ignore this dispute in order to unlawfully pursue the foreclosure case against me in violation of the Federal Court Order which explicitly prohibits in from filing suit under the circumstances of my loan.
Bayview has falsely represented to the district Court in XXXX XXXX, that there was no dispute. To the contrary, XXXX was provided a Notice of Breach and Termination of the loan contracts dated XXXX XXXX, XXXX, as a result of the dispute that Bayview now falsely claims did not exist. See Exhibit B. A brief investigation into this matter will quickly reveal that there has been an ongoing dispute regarding the failure to apply my loan payments sinceXX/XX/XXXX and that XXXX was also charging me illegal and unauthorized fees ( charging me fees for both properties when I only owned one property ). It was that very conduct that resulted in the lawsuit by the FTC and subsequent Federal Court Order which Bayview has violated. Exhibit A. For example, after sending XXXX three ( 3 ) checks on XX/XX/XXXX ( see Exhibit C ) XXXX first said the checks were missing. See Exhibit D. XXXX later returned those payments falsely claiming that certified funds were required. In a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX however, XXXX admitted that the payments did not require certified funds stating, This will confirm that although your account was past due for the XXXX andXX/XX/XXXX installments at the time ; your loan had not been referred to our Foreclosure Department and ; as such did not require certified funds. See, Exhibit E at p.2, bullet point 4. When asked to explain why the checks were returned, XXXX failed to respond. See, Exhibit D. Here XXXX failed to accept and apply my payments claiming the payments required certified funds, then later admitted in writing that the payments did not require certified funds. Exhibit E at p.2, bullet point 4. As a result of failing to resolve this and other issues, XXXX was issued the Notice of Breach and Termination of the loan contracts on XX/XX/XXXX Under these and other circumstances, Bayview is in violation of the FTC / Federal Court Order ( Exhibit A ) by filing and maintaining a foreclosure suit against me particularly as it has misrepresented to the District Court that I failed to make these payments when such a statement is clearly false. The misrepresentations are also a violation of Federal consumer financial protection laws. Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX