Consumer complaint received 2023-03-15
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — 
Company: Quality Loan Service Corporation (CA)

QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION may be considered a debt collector attempting to collect a debt that you owe to XXXX XXXX XXXX, successor trustee to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, successor in Interest to XXXX XXXX XXXX as trustee, on behalf of the holders of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Trust. Any information will be used for that purpose. 

Dear Quality Loan Service Corporation, Below find my response to a recent XXXX response to a complaint I filed with CFPB. 
" XXXX is a mortgage servicer '' does not say that XXXX is or ever was " servicing '' my alleged unpaid loan account. This is an obvious attempt to avoid making the assertion that they should be making and instead replacing it with an implication. Their response implies that they have been servicing my payments and making distributions to my creditor. If that is not true, then their statement is irrelevant. 
I object to the assertion that XXXX is the company that performs any functions with respect to physical receipt, processing, depositing or disbursement of funds in relation to any account bearing my name or any unpaid loan account on the ledger of any creditor. And they don't say that they do represent such a creditor or that they do perform such functions. If they mean they do other things that technically complies with the definition of " Servicer '', then they should say what they mean or not say it at all, since that is irrelevant to the question of validation of the debt. 
" servicing of your account was transferred to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX'. They do not state that XXXX was performing the aforesaid functions of a servicer either. AND it fails to respond to my question or request for documents, to wit : if the servicing was transferred, this " misunderstanding '' could be cleared up potentially by presenting the agreement between XXXX and XXXX. Under representations and warranties, the issues would be clearly stated as is required in all documents involving banks. Neither of them assert that they represent as agent any creditor who maintains an unpaid account due from me. 
" XXXX  XXXX the account according to the terms of the enclosed Note and Deed of Trust that were signed at origination. '' This is untrue unless they are willing to assert that they are in the business of accepting payments from me and that they have received payments from me and deposited those payments to the benefit of a creditor or otherwise distributed the funds for the benefit of a creditor. 
" we have also enclosed your Home Affordable Modification Agreement, XXXX Transaction History, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  Customer Account Activity Statement, Corporate Advance History, Escrow Disbursement History, and Fee History. '' This is not relevant without an assertion and corroboration of the existence of an unpaid receivable account owed to some identified creditor who will acknowledge both the debt owned by them and their appointment of XXXX or XXXX as their agent. A copy of the ledger certified by the alleged creditor is what I am asking for, not some random report run by remote financial technology companies. 
" Please understand that servicing rights and duties are established by contract between the Noteholder and the servicer. '' This is only true if the noteholder is the owner of the underlying debt. The servicing contract has not been produced. Normal servicing contracts would have the principal ( creditor ) warrant ownership and authority over the asset that is being managed by the servicer. 
" As the servicer, XXXX is responsible for enforcing the Deed of Trust and Note on behalf of the Noteholder. '' This statement is untrue. It is not responsible nor even authorized to enforce unless selected and appointed to do so by an identified creditor who affirms ownership of the debt and the appointment of XXXX to enforce it. This is exactly what I have been asking to receive and they keep evading the question. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, successor trustee to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX successor in interest to XXXX XXXX XXXX as trustee, on behalf of the holders of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is the Noteholder of the account, and XXXX is the mortgage servicer. '' XXXX can not be the mortgage servicer, unless it is acting as the agent of a creditor who can produce an authorized officer or employee to affirm the ownership of a debt owed by me to that creditor. XXXX XXXX XXXXs not the successor trustee to XXXX XXXX XXXX unless it was authorized to do so by the party who created the trust, along with the consent of the beneficiaries of the trust. The trust agreement in which XXXX XXXX  was originally named, can not possibly qualify XXXX XXXX  as a successor trustee under the terms of the trust agreement. My argument with this is that, regardless of whether or not the trustor agreed to the change of trustee, and regardless of whether or not this change could've been ratified by the beneficiaries, no such agreement or consent was ever given. Therefore, XXXX XXXX  has no right to be operating as the trustee for the alleged trust. ( which doesn't own the debt anyway ). Since neither the trust agreement for this particular trust, nor any evidence of consent or authorization by the trust, store, or beneficiaries, is even referenced, this statement is pure nonsense designed to provoke the reader into implying or inferring that these formalities have been satisfied. Remember that the trust itself, even if it exists, is just a legal fiction based on following the formalities required by statute. Lastly, the reference is not to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX or even XXXXXXXX XXXX being a trustee for a trust. it is an assertion that they are trustees or agents for certificate holders. Once again the attempt is to provoke the reader into implying or inferring that the certificate holders are beneficiaries. But without any doubt that the certificate holders are not beneficiaries of any trust. XXXX XXXX  owes no fiduciary duty to any certificate holder and in recent litigation, XXXX XXXX  has repeatedly and successfully defended against lawsuits filed by certificate holders asserting that XXXX XXXX owed any duty to them. 
" While there is no recorded assignment to provide to you at this time, the mortgage assignment is tracked through the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems ( MERS ) electronic registry. MERS tracks the ownership and servicing of some mortgage loans in the United States. '' The statement is not only untrue, but it is blatantly fraudulent. There is no recorded assignment because the lien was never purchased, sold, or even assigned on paper. This grows out of false claims that XXXX has mostly abandoned. When it acquired the assets of XXXX XXXX  on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX illegally took the position in courts across the country that every loan that had been originated by XXXX XXXX, was owned by XXXX, even though those loans were all subject to claims of securitization just like my transaction. The only public records that exist in our system of government and laws are the public records that are maintained by public authority. They are trying to tell me that a private entity is an acceptable substitute for public records. This goes one step further than the usual fatal deficiency in claims made. Usually, there is at least a fake assignment. In this case, they admit that no such assignment can be produced. Considering the time in which they have been able to perform research and due diligence, it is reasonable to require a court to make a negative inference-that a new purchase and sale of the underlying obligation, note or mortgage has ever occurred. They are attempting to launder the title to lien. 
Regards, XXXX XXXX