Consumer complaint received 2020-06-26
Product: Debt collection — Mortgage debt
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: Onity Group Inc. (TX)

By letter response dated XX/XX/XXXX and enclosed hereto as Exhibit A, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) c/o PHH Mortgage Services ( PHH ) provided the following false and deceptive statements along with  forged falsely uttered evidence enclosed thereto : ( 1 ) As displayed on page five of five of the communication and throughout, XXXX  and PHH continue to identify the Customer ( s ) for the above referenced account number as the " Estate of XXXX XXXX XXXX '' ( See Exhibit A ), when no such estate or person exist and the Estate of XXXX XXXX XXXX has no interest in the subject property or subject account number. ; ( 2 ) As displayed on page one of five of the XX/XX/XXXX communication, XXXX  and PHH declared they were not involved in the origination of the account and therefore would not be able to comment on concerns regarding the origination. ( See Exhibit A ), which is proof that everything declared under penalty of perjury in the foreclosure action under Docket No.  XXXX pertaining to the original transaction is unsubstantiated - unauthenticated hearsay because neither XXXX  or PHH have knowledge as to whether or not the original transaction is fraud in factum, the product of illegalities by XXXX XXXX XXXX   XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) and subject to set-off and recoupment. 
( 3 ) As displayed on page two of five of the XX/XX/XXXX communication, XXXX  and PHH stated there is no single owner of the account, but rather the account is one of many in a securitized investment trust, XXXX XXXX XXXX Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series XXXX. ( See Exhibit A ), a statement that XXXX and PHH omitted in the pleadings filed in the above docket number, you omitted the names and identities of the multiple owners ( alleged ) for the subject account number in their XX/XX/XXXX communication and have yet to provide a notice of new creditor as required by federal law ( See 15 U.S.C. section 1641 ( g ) ). ; ( 4 ) As displayed on page two of five of the XX/XX/XXXX communication, XXXX  and / or PHH declared they are servicing the account for XXXX XXXX XXXX Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( See Exhibit A ), without presenting a power of attorney as required by N.J.S.A. XXXX in the foreclosure action under Docket No. XXXX or within XXXX and PHHs XX/XX/XXXX correspondence ( See Exhibit A ) to prove their claims of agency. ; ( 5 ) As displayed on page two of five of the XX/XX/XXXX communication, XXXX  and PHH stated that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) is the trustee for XXXX XXXX XXXX and the alleged trustee does not own the subject account ( See Exhibit A ), which is a claim omitted from XXXX  and PHHs pleadings in the foreclosure action under Docket No. XXXX ( See Exhibit L ), contradicts their statements set forth within the instrument titled CORPORATE ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE that they enclosed within their XX/XX/XXXX communication wherein XXXX XXXX as Trustee for XXXX XXXX XXXX is designated owner of the subject mortgage loan as of XX/XX/XXXX for an alleged good and valuable consideration that XXXX XXXX as Trustee for XXXX XXXX XXXX paid to XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. as Trustee for XXXX XXXX XXXX ( See Exhibit B ), and the alleged assignment is five years after Ocwen Loan Servicing ( Ocwen ) commenced its foreclosure action against me in Docket No. XXXX by complaint filed on XX/XX/XXXX for the subject mortgage loan ( See Exhibit L ) ; ( 6 ) The XX/XX/XXXX communication from XXXX and PHH fails to include evidence demonstrating when and how ownership and possession of the subject mortgage loan was transferred from XXXX XXXX XXXX as the originator before XXXX XXXX XXXX  became a chapter XXXX bankruptcy debtor on XX/XX/XXXX ( to present date ) in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware under Case No. XXXXXXXX ( XXXX ) ( See Exhibit C ). ; ( 7 ) XXXX  and / or PHH claimed on page two of five of their XX/XX/2020communication that the loan originated with Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems ( MERS  ) as the original beneficiary of the Mortgage solely as nominee for the original lender its successors and assigns without presenting a power of attorney as required by N.J.S.A. 46:2B-8.2 in either their pending foreclosure action in Doc. No. XXXX or their correspondence XX/XX/XXXX ( See Exhibit A ). ; ( 8 ) XXXX  and PHH referenced on page two of five of their XX/XX/XXXX communication a MIN number that is associated with the above referenced account number without providing an authoritative copy of the transferable record as I previously requested and they are required to provide pursuant to 15 U.S.C. section 7021 ( f ). ; ( 9 ) XXXX  and PHH claimed on page two of  five of their XX/XX/XXXX communication that the subject account is past due for the XX/XX/XXXX payment and further claimed on page three of five of their XX/XX/XXXX communication that The Litton Payment History enclosed to their communication reflects all credits and disbursements made to the account by Litton and the resulting account status., all of which is false and they continue to omit and conceal : ( i ) the trial modification agreement offered by Litton Loan and executed by me on XX/XX/XXXX, requiring three payments of {$1900.00} for XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX that were all timely paid and cashed by Litton Loan ( See Exhibit D ), and the latter failed to permanently modify the transaction or apply payments to the subject account ; ( ii ) a total of {$10000.00} in payments that were made to and cashed by Litton Loan for the installments declared due towards the subject account on XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX ( See Exhibit E ) ; and ( iii ) a total of {$5100.00} in payments that were tendered and presented to Litton Loan for the installments declared due towards the subject account on XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX that were returned by Litton Loan for several varying reasons, the middle of which instructed me to refer to my already deceased husband on the payment ( See Exhibit F ). ; ( 10 ) XXXX  and PHH claimed on page three of five of their XX/XX/XXXX communication that It was determined that the foreclosure proceedings were initiated on XX/XX/XXXX, at that time the account was past due for XX/XX/XXXX payment, followed by their claim on the same page that the account was referred to foreclosure on XX/XX/XXXX. At the time of the referral, the account was past due for the XX/XX/XXXX payments. ( See Exhibit A ), and those statements are false, deceptive and contradictory because : ( i ) Litton Loan did indeed commence a foreclosure action on XX/XX/XXXX under Docket No. :  XXXX which is the same day my husband died, and the underlying complaint matured the subject account number and demanded the total amount due thereunder as of XX/XX/XXXX ( See Exhibit G ) ; ( ii ) XXXX  and PHH are falsely implying in the pending foreclosure action under Docket No. XXXX ( See Exhibit L ) and within their XX/XX/XXXX communication ( See Exhibit A ) that payments were made and applied towards the subject account for the installments due XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX when they were not ; ( iii ) they are claiming the subject account was referred to foreclosure on XX/XX/XXXX, at which time, Ocwen was still prosecuting a foreclosure for the subject account under Docket No. XXXX declaring a default as of XX/XX/XXXX until the matter was voluntarily dismissed by Ocwen on XX/XX/XXXX ( See Exhibit H ). ; ( 11 ) XXXX  and PHH claimed on page three of five of their XX/XX/XXXX communication that XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) is their foreclosure attorney for the foreclosure action under Docket No. XXXX wherein XXXX XXXX   as Trustee for XXXX XXXX XXXX is designated plaintiff ( See Exhibit L ) while, according to a recorded telephone conversation placed to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX services on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX employees indicated that : ( i ) they have no knowledge about or ownership of the subject loan, account number or address ; ( ii ) they have no knowledge about or involvement with the present and pending foreclosure under docket number XXXX ; and ( iii ) they have never retained XXXX  XXXX  to initiate and maintain the present and pending foreclosure under docket number XXXX. ; and ( 12 ) the note instrument that NewRez and PHH enclosed with their XX/XX/XXXX communication that is certified to be a true copy remains payable to XXXX XXXX XXXX and the last page ( five of five ) is followed by a Notice of Right to Cancel ( See Exhibit I ), and is not followed by the separate forged counterfeit piece of paper that they previously caused to be electronically filed with the NJ Superior Court in the pending foreclosure action under Docket No. XXXX ( under penalties pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1343 and other state and federal criminal statutes ) by XXXX XXXX, XXXX. ( Attorney XXXX ) of XXXX XXXX that is certified to be a true and correct copy of the original instrument and includes a separate piece of paper behind page five of five that bears a counterfeit and undated stamp misrepresented to be an indorsement by XXXX XXXX ( See Exhibit J ), the latter of whose varying and forged signatures and stamps are documented by the Florida Office of the Attorney General Economic Crimes Division report titled Unfair, Deceptive And Unconscionable Acts In Foreclosure Cases ( Id. at Page 61-62 of  98 ) ( See Exhibit K ).