Consumer complaint received 2022-02-22
Product: Mortgage — Other type of mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — 
Company: Onity Group Inc. (WA)

I XXXX XXXX XXXX, am concerned that there is immediate need for injunction and restitution. I seek your expertise and authority to inform the agency heads as to the grave injustice that is proceeding. There is a hearing in XXXX XXXX today XX/XX/XXXX, under XXXX, which may cause to invalidate our recorded interest and award a Quiet title to land developers. They have interfered with all our attempts to settle the claims with XXXX Bank since prior to the XXXX foreclosure. As I am still in the home, I intend preserve my interest and The XXXX 's estate. My family have attempted to defend and assert the right to rescind and did properly defeat the WILD, Unlawful, Unconscionable contract. We are seeking right to equity and ownership of our home. 
We are first time homeowners, first time buyers, and never refinanced, or even legally completed any remodification. The proof and records are already in the possession of the XXXX, XXXX XXXX, The CFPB file XXXX [ XXXX ] XXXX The Federal Court XXXX and The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX of this state supplied by the foreclosing entities. The exhibits and statements made by the attorney on behalf of XXXX XXXX differ from the response provided to this agency compared to the response provided to the XXXX. All this is evidence confirms and substantiate everything alleged by the XXXX 's. The extent of trickery and egregious actions by the foreclosing Parties and their counsel are too numerous and therefore extremely difficult to direct the courts and regulators to. 
We have made every attempt to navigate Non-Judicial foreclosure proceedings under the WA XXXX more than a good faith effort to negotiate with the regulatory agencies, foreclosure prevention entities, and the foreclosing parties. Everyone has ignored us. Now I see that the DOJ has found liability and guilt information under XXXX XXXX XXXX. ( See footnote at XXXX of Annex XXXX, as it relates to NPV and equity to the parties ). The settlement is contingent on the relief to the homeowners. It shows there was viable restitution and remedy to keep us out of foreclosure and out of harms way this entire time. Not one of the states agencies made an attempt to help us. This Mortgage created consist of Violations of Sections 17 ( a ) ( 2 ) and 17 ( a ) ( 3 ) of the Securities Act and 17 ( b ) engaged in transactions, practices, or sec ( 16 ) courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser. CV XXXX filed XX/XX/XXXX against the false representation made by the XXXX securities offerings explains in detail the effects this contract has on the world financial markets and global economy. It also shows the knowledge and forethought of XXXX and XXXX Bank as it pertains to their respective roles. Also see that history shows all parties beside the homeowner victims were able to seek remedy or claims under securitization jurisdiction and are not injured by the XXXX 's. ( XXXX Bank XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX FDIC, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), and see FDIC XXXX & A for failed bank for XXXX cost over XXXX XXXX in FDIC insured accounts to be paid, less than half of the Liabilities after all assets liquidated. 
In fact the XXXX was signing a stipulated Judgement to settle horrific crimes against XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX ( all bad acts against XXXX transpired XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX conveniently ) On XX/XX/XXXX in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Judgement it was explicitly noted that we were resolving claims for monetary compensation paid to us for harm done during these years. Furthermore, the damages awarded were TO BE conclusive of the damages we sustained during these years XXXX. HOWEVER, it is my believe any amount owed to XXXX XXXX would be included as they initiated foreclosure in XXXX and proceeded to trustee sale on XX/XX/XXXX in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX day XXXX settled with the XXXX 's XXXX I feel that a rouge escrow account falsely trigger foreclosure on us in XXXX the same month WA XXXX was cashing an extortion bank draft forced under duress to pay and then the XXXX XXXX is allowed to proceed in this State without the agency heads even looking into the DOJ XXXX XXXX XXXX the XXXX XXXX Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX disturbing. The winter of XXXX XXXX spent sitting in the cold, dark, XXXX XXXX with no food or heat trying to study law to defend against the foreclosure and the XXXX agents simultaneous, [ which is The XXXX 's full time residence not properly taxed or described ]. 

All the documents and exhibits provided are an admission of the adverse party. Because they have been supplied and are available for review, I will point out several factors that appear to violate the XXXX 's rights, as well as the foreclosing statutory requirements. 
A trustee can not appoint a trustee. A Trustee and Beneficiary can not be the same persons under WA XXXX. Who is the XXXX of the DOT foreclosed on the XXXX 's XXXX? The Lienholder notice sent by XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX was sent to XXXX Bank. The XXXX XXXX states that the XXXX XXXX case was moved to XXXX XX/XX/XXXX to restrain sale. Our right to demand trial or contest a magistrate was waived XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX and XXXX XXXX say 14 days from filing a case are allowed to comply with this. XXXX is 13 days. The federal docket will also show that Ocwen filed the case XX/XX/XXXX, first document on court is the XXXX 's Complaint. This document was replaced by Ocwen on XX/XX/XXXX, the same day the XXXX was removed, and XXXX assigned. An action is not brought, and case does not commence until filing of the complaint. Further the XXXX have no idea what was placed on the federal court XX/XX/XXXX labelled " the complaint '' and then changed XX/XX/XXXX. This is Prejudice and strange. Third the response to CFPF on page XXXX sec XXXX states sale was Postponed to XX/XX/XXXX. No notice was provided or published. Then there is the fact that Ocwen and PHH were merging in Delaware in XXXX. Ocwen was forced closed due to the violations it was already known to be committing on homeowners. XX/XX/XXXX consent order was signed exactly when Ocwen acquired the XXXX 's accounts and proceeded to do every XXXX of the violations alleged by your agency to my family up until XX/XX/XXXX. PHH was not merged in WA until XXXX. There was no servicer to negotiate with all of XX/XX/XXXX to save the foreclosure from proceeding. Further XX/XX/XXXX PHH responded to XXXX complaint and said they needed more time and would provide the XXXX response after XX/XX/XXXX sale date. Also, PHH admitted to needing more time to provide the XXXX required account statements and confessed to providing the XXXX 's with false information in their response provided to us in XXXX. 
PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT these actions should be moot, considering I have learned that the XXXX XXXX has so been ordered, back in XXXX to provide direct relief to the VICTIMS. I am a direct transacting party from XXXX all the way until XX/XX/XXXX, when PHH sold the REO to an investment company. From XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX the title was in the name of XXXX Bank as trustee for XXXX XXXX and PHH is XXXX of attorney to complete the XXXX requirements of foreclosure and holding property. During this time the XXXX makes clear that the XXXX can void the trustee sale and make right with the XXXX 's rather than continue to move forward and knowingly perpetuate the now confirmed mortgage fraud. 
The order and sanctions imposed by the DOJ on XXXX Bank for finally confessing to the collaboration with XXXX under the XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) transaction. Gave until XX/XX/XXXX to XXXX Bank to comply with the requirements of XXXX XXXX in the form of 100 % forgiveness or a workable negotiation. The XXXX 's being under contract the entire time with the original parties from XXXX have never been afforded any mitigation or loss prevention. We were in fact denied by all the agencies. What this means is that all equity and obligation has been performed by the XXXX 's. We paid and they do admit this. There statements show the value of the home on the XXXX records in XXXX XXXX and now XXXX. Its beyond likely they are not entitled to gross enrichment. We have receipts to prove far more paid to the parties. ( They all are now confirmed to have committed fraud under that Transaction of XXXX INABS trust. ) Why would this state not order the relief be granted rather than imply the XXXX 's must pay known criminals? The XXXX collapsed the world economy, this is an international event, PHH is a foreign company, and this may very well be crimes against Humanity. Not just against XXXX XXXX XXXX. However, I am only seeking your intervention and assistance in protection from the crime of foreclosing on my home. The XXXX 's are only the second owner of the summer cabin on XXXX XXXX. It is a XXXX XXXX and it has an interesting and odd past. The Trustee on the DOT recorded was scratched off. The original trustees named all deny any knowledge of this DOT. The XXXX is very clear that the beneficiary may assign a successor trustee for foreclosure and upon this they are vested with full statutory authority of THE ORIGINAL TRUSTEE, with which comes power of sale Who is the TRUSTEE under the XXXX 's DOT? Furthermore, the Escrow was collected XX/XX/XXXX, the heirs of the estate ( sellers ) were conveyed the estate from probate XX/XX/XXXX. The escrow covered title insurance and closing costs, for the loan on the DOT. The escrow agent was XXXX. They were not licensed. XXXX, took the escrow and some other title company forced a legal description change 1 day prior to executing the DOT with XXXX. The title insurance went with the escrow under loan displayed on DOT, XXXX took first payment early and under a different loan number XX/XX/XXXX with an entirely separate escrow account for our tax and PMI. Recently I see this XXXX account # with escrow for the PMI was still running concurrent XXXX payable to XXXX, while Ocwen started servicing XXXX under account no XXXX, to which an escrow account was also active. I even called and spoke to the XXXX in XXXX when I discovered this and they are unable to represent individuals, so I received no notice that this trust was found to have violated my family and relief was ordered. On this note it is my understanding that upon the courts recommendation or prosecutors recommendation regulatory agencies in WA may enjoin a citizen complaint if action is in the interest of the public. This is a perfect example. The same parties as in XXXX XXXX XXXX, however the XXXX have been injured directly by MERS, and there is absolute harm and certain absolute that we are at risk of paying twice. These two elements are the 2 elements of the CPA violations that were not found to be present in that case. Also in XXXX she defaulted in the first year XXXX, on much larger loan value. Even despite this the XXXX enjoined the action due to all the excitement surrounding MERS beneficiary not recording in the XXXX XXXX records. That case determined MERS was not a beneficiary under WA XXXX, but more important they recognized that XXXX dissolved and could not assign interest by a nominee in XXXX. So why can they in XXXX by way of OCWEN as MERS attorney in fact, where MERS is acting for XXXX? Could it be the patented loan document that allows them the beneficial interest? ( MERS Modified XXXX ). 
The multiple mystery accounts ran through the life of our DOT until all agencies were starting to investigate the XXXX in late XXXX - XXXX Ocwen began to foreclose to consolidate the concurrent fraudulent accounts. This was only made aware by my pleadings to the court in XXXX by the counsel and that is why all responses to your agency heads were redacted. The court rules on redaction or debt disputes makes clear that the identifying material evidence such as account numbers do not qualify for redaction. This was a deceitful act to prejudice us. 
I recently learned fidelity was not licensed and find it must be made known to your agency and the regulatory heads that is the only reason XXXX XXXX XXXX under case XXXX is attempting to rule against the XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX for a superior title action. Because he is an escrow agent licensed to assign the DOT. When in fact the escrow agent that sold the mortgage was not licensed either, and refuses to allow Our Reconveyance and declaration. 
I have read the XXXX, XXXX, and assumption agreements, I have read the XXXX and XXXX ratings entitled " The Takedown '' dated XX/XX/XXXX. I have read all the SEC filings from all the entities under the XXXX XXXX XXXX Issuing contract and understand how the Depositor, Seller, Issuer, Sponsor, Servicer, Lender all being IndyMac is not normal. Yet because of XXXX performing and controlling all these roles under XXXX, when they were deemed insolvent the entire contract legally collapsed. It must be void as it was made specifically when insolvent. Statutorily and traditionally this is accurate. However under the XXXX, The Trustee ( XXXX Bank [ Co-Manager of the XXXX XXXX Trust formation and XXXX ] XXXX would take beneficial interest of " the assets '' and " the Original Loan documents '' among many other indemnification contract language, that preserved the XXXX XXXX contract. It was not until XXXX upon officially linking XXXX Bank to XXXX and having equally engaged in the underwriting scheme, false representations of the opine, and malfeasance that action can now be brought. The share holders and certificate holders are not the only ones injured. 
Deliberate indifference as instructed under WPI XXXX appears to be consistently effecting my families right to peace and fear from persecution. I feel the Agencies are turning a XXXX Eye to XXXX XXXX Trusts abusive business Practice and failing to Prevent by required reporting of Trust. And imposing Double standards by subjecting the XXXX to the XXXX when the foreclosing beneficiary is the ISSUER, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and should have been restrained from non-judicial foreclosure. This is the issuing entity formed under the XXXX Prospectus Co-Managed by XXXX and XXXX Bank. The contract closed on XX/XX/XXXX, The same day the XXXX XXXX with the parties under the XXXX. As of the findings and in full consideration of the totality of the findings in the completed XXXX and XXXX cases conducted over the last XXXX years it has been found to be an unconscionable contract. According to the language used by the DOJ settlement as well as the FDIC, XXXX, AND similar cases settled, does not waive the rights of any individual or any agency of state or local to pursue claims for the Mortgage Securitization scheme INABS XXXX contract. That as of XX/XX/XXXX XXXX Bank as trustee lost any Indemnification provided in the XXXX contract that is the INABS XXXX. I lost all the equity by XXXX plummeting, and also the world economy collapsed as a result. My family has persevered all these years and started XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, 3 days before XXXX funded the formation of the XXXX in XXXX as a direct result of this contract. 
I also believe it is because of the desire to provide loans to the XXXX that XXXX loan numbers were generated under the XXXX 's name and I also believe these were used to manage escrow accounts unlawfully. Our NOD which should be on file was sworn by XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX to have provided the XXXX 's a mediation meeting with beneficiary. It is blank on the date and time of this false meeting. I learn that XXXX XXXX was the same rep that committed perjury in a bankruptcy case by lying about hugely overstate escrow shortages XX/XX/XXXX. Could it be that the XXXX 's really did not get a mediation meeting and that we were also victim of an escrow shortage scheme? Is it fishy that the XXXX recorded on the DOT was never paid on yet the title insurance and escrow account did in fact go forth with that loan number. Is it also strange that no Trustee on the DOT truly ever existed or wont admit? are they not the one with the Power of Sale. Is it not more likely than not that the closing escrow agents had something to do with the changing of the legal description of the estate a day before close? It is no secret that the neighbors on XXXX XXXX who have now purchased the dirty deed in XX/XX/XXXX are intending to develop and are not bona-fide purchasers. They have mocked us for not having any remedy under foreclosure and are providing no legal authority to deny our recorded interest. The XXXX stated XX/XX/XXXX that they do not have jurisdiction to void the XXXX 's recorded interest, however he will sign a legally insufficient SJ order today at XXXX to try to cause such effect in order to give the appearance of justification for ruling in favor of the parties seeking to profit from horrific mortgage fraud. This is causing undue hardship, it is very disturbing and has already harmed me beyond repair. The only saving grace has been the sanctuary of my home. It was appraised at XXXX in XXXX by an independent XXXX. 
Short XXXX c XXXX : " This act may be known and cited as the foreclosure fairness act. '' [ 2011 c 58 2. ] ( b ) Create a framework for homeowners and beneficiaries to communicate with each other to reach a resolution and avoid foreclosure whenever possible; and ( c ) Provide a process for foreclosure mediation when a housing counselor or attorney determines that mediation is appropriate. 
Additionally the XXXX also states that the XXXX will do everything it can to work with the XXXX for the beneficiary XXXX. WA created XXXX, sec XXXX, sec XXXX, sec XXXX, sec XXXX and sec XXXX specifically to combat the hidden beneficiaries and the lost ability to negotiate with a lender. Securities and MERS give rise and are cause of legally unsound deed of trust statutes in the wake of the securitization of residential mortgages. To make matters worse the XXXX also gives detail of how the servicer and trustee are paid. Both serve to profit in such ways that are left to self regulation and honor system. XXXX would profit from the dissolution of XXXX and the XXXX, is in a position that provides beneficial interest in foreclosing, proceeds, and full deference to determine when a mortgage is in default which is breeding ground for scienter. The servicer incentives were used to prolong application times and delay modifications and in my case Ocwen accepted over a year of payments and kept them in suspense or unapplied funds continuously. They refused to apply additional payments to principal as well. 
Given that there is clearly more than meets the eye here and there is time to save our home, and perhaps assist in continuing efforts to prosecute the bad actors, I respectfully call upon this agency and the State regulators to allow the XXXX 's to show the evidence, to seek restitution and protection. Because the PHH and XXXX bank did not sale until 2 years ago today, it is still technically within 2 years. However if your agency can confirm the DOJ settlement does in fact welcome state and local efforts to enforce. and You can confirm the XXXX XXXX XXXX is included in the list of trust that are named under the " covered conduct ''. The XXXX XXXX list the XXXX that XXXX Bank is liable to. XXXX XXXX is listed on page XXXX left column midway down. It is only under the XXXX 's DOT that all these parties can be seen in full light. I assert that both civil and criminal acts have been committed against my family by XXXX bank. Please understand that this is no way conclusive of all the findings and evidence that I have uncovered. I am not an attorney and do not have the ability to articulate any of this briefly. I also would ask that you remember XXXX XXXX is a Trust, the ISSUING entity of ALL the securitized mortgages, and the security certificates. Within this XXXX are Hundreds of " supplemental trust ''. My mortgage just so happens to be held in a " supplemental trust '' also named XXXX XXXX. This is not the same as XXXX XXXX XXXX " issuer ''. This must be understood to confirm that XXXX Bank and XXXX did both conspire and are both now confirmed liable and have both directly harmed the XXXX and continue to proceed as a normal course of business under this contract. I seek equitable estoppel, and prosecution if it is found they are ignoring the DOJ order and attempting to conduct fraudulent mortgage activity in the state of WA. 
Thank you for your consideration and immediate attention to this matter as time is of the essence. The WA state constitution and statutory code do not intend to supersede any federal law or law of The United States that has jurisdiction over such entities, as regulatory, licensing, or reporting enforcement. And likewise the federal authorities have given full deference to the local jurisdictions to take action. And furthermore, in the XXXX XXXX XXXX under XXXX XXXX it also makes clear that the Servicer and Trustee will report to and abide by any local jurisdictions authority as it XXXX relate. The statute of limitation XXXX be closing, or it XXXX be seen to not yet have commenced as the compliance review for XXXX will be evaluated next month. I would like to have the concerns presented here addressed regardless if I lose my home or not. These states regulatory agencies will need to tell the XXXX 's and XXXX XXXX : 1. who the ORIGINAL trustee was? 2. who had any statutory authority ( MERS as beneficiary ) to assign to XXXX in XXXX beneficial interest of XXXX XXXX 3. Did MERS divest any beneficial interest to XXXX? If, so under what legal statute or authority do you rely? 4. Who was the XXXX that foreclosed? 5. Are they the proper party to foreclose on a residential first-time homeowner under WA XXXX? 6. If XXXX XXXX has WA approval to foreclose, does the DOJ XXXX XXXX have no merit? or is it not applicable to The XXXX? 8. If XXXX XXXX has WA approval to foreclose, can the XXXX or XXXX explain what obligation they are foreclosing on? 9. The default on the receivables, or is that one Leon secures two obligations? 
I am available for any further information and I do appreciate your diligence in this matter. 
Signed This day XX/XX/XXXX. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX