Consumer complaint received 2018-09-02
Product: Debt collection — Mortgage debt
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: FCI Lender Services Inc. (CA)

Fraud, and unfair business practice. ROBO signed documents misleading documents. Fake documents filed with the courts. Wrong amounts Forged Notary with wrong dates and forged loan documents to obtain foreclosure. Loan has been written off and included in Jumbo loan with XXXX XXXX. 
FCI LENDERS INC Active and its File Number is XXXX location:XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , CA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX This is a multi-location business. Find a location XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Email this Business ( XXXX ) XXXX Accredited This business is not XXXX Accredited. 

... XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is a Delaware Statutory Trust filed on XX/XX/XXXX. The company 's File Number is listed as XXXX. The Registered Agent on file for this company is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX and is located at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, DE XXXX. 

Has forged documents to make it look like they have originated the said loan. Company Name : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  File Number : XXXX Filing State : Delaware ( DE ) Filing Status : Unknown Tax File Number Exemption Form Filing Date : XX/XX/XXXX Company Age : 1 Year 7 Months The false representation or implication that any individual is an attorney or that any communication is from an attorney. The false representation of -- the character, amount, or legal status of any debt.809. Validation of debts ( a ) Notice of debt ; contents Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing -- ( 1 ) the amount of the debt ; ( 2 ) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed ; ( 3 ) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector ; 15 U.S. Code 1641 - Liability of assignees ( d ) Rights upon assignment of certain mortgages ( 1 ) In general Any person who purchases or is otherwise assigned a mortgage referred to in section 1602 ( aa ) [ 1 ] of this title shall be subject to all claims and defenses with respect to that  mortgage that the consumer could assert against the creditor of the mortgage, unless the purchaser or assignee demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a reasonable person exercising ordinary due diligence, could not determine, based on the documentation required by this subchapter, the itemization of the amount financed, and other disclosure of disbursements that the mortgage was a mortgage referred to in section 1602 ( aa ) [ 1 ] of this title. The preceding sentence does not affect rights of a consumer under subsection ( a ), ( b ), or ( c ) of this section or any other provision of this subchapter.

8 U.S. Code 1324c - Penalties for document fraud | US Law | LII ... To forge, counterfeit, alter, or falsely make any document for the purpose of .... file a petition.

How much does it cost to get justice, when a bank forecloses on your house illegally? Thousands of ex-homeowners don't pursue their rights to a financial settlement because they assume they couldn't pay the legal fees.

In fact, it costs less than you fear. Consumer lawyers take a few cases at no charge. More likely, you'll pay fees -- upfront or on a monthly plan -- tied to the lawyer 's estimate of the time it will take and your ability to pay. If they win your case, they'll collect from the financial institution, too.

Before readers attack the " greedy lawyers '' for defending " deadbeat '' clients who couldn't repay their mortgage loans, let me quote from a groundbreaking decisionreached earlier this month by the Massachusetts Supreme Court. The court reversed two foreclosures because the banks -- XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, acting as trustees for investors -- couldn't prove that they actually owned the mortgages. Judge XXXX XXXX XXXX excoriated them for their " utter carelessness. '' The fact that the borrowers owed the money was " not the point, '' he wrote. The right to deprive people of their property is a powerful one and banks have to prove they have the legal standing to do so.