Consumer complaint received 2018-09-11
Product: Mortgage — Other type of mortgage
Issue: Closing on a mortgage — 
Company: Fay Servicing, LLC (VA)

Obtained {$840000.00} as construction loan, in XXXX which never converted into conventional, contacted servicer XXXX  XXXX XXXX and Fay Servicing, but nothing done. Rescinded loan within 03 years and then many times as a defense to illegal foreclosure, when not in default. I was placed into manufactured default by the servicer XXXX XXXX XXXX just to cash credit default swaps and payments from various insurance companies. House was scheduled for foreclosure and was forced to file bankruptcy protection to save the primary residence.The subject loan was rescinded as a defense to foreclosure. The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) as agent for non-owners and non-creditors Fay Servicing, ( Fay ) and XXXX XXXX XXXX, ( XXXX ) failed to act within the 20 days window, and by operation of law the rescission is self imposed. The 20 day window is closed now and you and your clients interest in property, ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Virginia XXXX ) and in the Promissory Note, ( Note ) has been negated. The Deed of Trust, ( DOT ) is void by operation of law. Therefore XXXX XXXX XXXX can not verify and validate the rescinded loan, which was already discharged in Debtor XXXX XXXX chapter 7 bankruptcy. a ) The statute is clear and the XXXX decision drills home the point -- - the chronology of TILA rescission starts with delivery or mailing the notice of cancelation. It is THEN that rescission is effective by operation of law. It is a " done deal. '' b ) The rescission was effective when mailed.

c ) Therefore, the note and DOT were void d ) The failure of the alleged " lender and its agent XXXX XXXX XXXX to comply with the rescission duties and then pursue repayment within one year from the date of rescission bars them from pursuing the debt. So, now there is no note, DOT or enforceable debt.

e ) The legal effect is that the loan agreement is over, and the note and DOT are void. The debt survives but ( 1 ) is now conditioned on compliance with the lender 's obligations under the statutory scheme that replaced the loan agreement and ( 2 ) enforcement in all events is barred by the one-year statute of limitations even if the lender did comply with the statute f ) The authority is vitiated by operation of law regardless of the status of litigation. The title never changed, and XXXX XXXX probably owns the. 
g ) The rescission removed the note, DOT, Assignment of DOT and loan agreement from legal consideration and therefore subject matter jurisdiction was lacking thereafter -- - a point that can be brought up anytime, even on appeal or even later. 
AND that imposing a remedy based upon void documents violates due process rights of the XXXX XXXX. 
AND that any ruling denying the application of TILA rescission is void in the absence of a party with legal standing seeking a remedy ( vacating the rescission ) asserting ( 1 ) legal standing ( injury ) and ( 2 ) grounds upon which the rescission could be vacated.

Any contrary ruling ( ignoring the TILA rescission ) is itself void on both jurisdiction and due process grounds 2. The pursuing a claim based upon the note and mortgage /Deed of Trust, ( DOT ) is out XXXX XXXX XXXX as agent for non-owners and non-creditors, Fay and XXXX no longer have legal standing and the Court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction over their claims or defenses. 
3. The actual creditor failed to comply, within 20 days from notice of rescission, either comply with the statute or file a lawsuit invoking and standing or any other basis upon which they dispute that the rescission was properly sent.

4. The XXXX XXXX XXXX as agent for non-owners and non-creditors, Fay and XXXX failing to invoke the remedy of repayment or the duty of compliance within one year from date of mailing is barred from pursuing any statutory claim, because they let the 20 days window close upon them.

5. The rescission caused the loan agreement, the note and the DOT to be void by operation of law now of mailing or delivery.

6. There is no basis for a motion or ruling ( from any court other than SCOTUS ) that starts with the premise that rescission is effective upon delivery or mailing " IF ''. There is no " IF. '' There is no " provided. '' There is no " However. '' There are no conditions other than delivery or mailing. 
7. Title stays unchanged as of the date of mailing, to wit : fee simple absolute with no encumbrance of mortgage or deed of trust.

8. The statutory scheme replaces the loan agreement just as the statutory scheme for nonjudicial foreclosure replaces the constitutional requirement of due process PROVIDED that the homeowner may still invoke the right to due process.

9. Hence any further activities to enforce the note and mortgage /Deed of Trust, ( DOT ), verification and validation of the rescinded loan were legally void. 
10. That any change of title wherein a party [ terminated trustee XXXX ] received title via any instrument executed by anyone [ non-owner/ non-creditor XXXX XXXX XXXX on behalf of undisclosed creditor, through the Robo-signers XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX ] other than XXXX XXXX are equally legally void. In fact, that would be the very definition of a wild deed. 
11. The grantor [ non-owner/ non-creditor XXXX XXXX XXXX on behalf of undisclosed creditor ] did not have any right, title or interest to convey even if it was a beneficiary or Trustee in a DOT. 
12. Any other interpretation offered by the XXXX XXXX XXXX as agent for non-owners and non-creditors, Fay and XXXX would in substance boil down to arguments about why the rescission notice should not be effective upon mailing, like the statute says and like SCOTUS said 9-0 in XXXX. 
13. XXXX XXXX XXXX as agent for non-owners and non-creditors, Fay and XXXX attempts to impose conditional statements on the TILA rescission statute is wrong and void. Each such attempt assumes grounds for vacating the rescission have been proven by a party with standing, and XXXX XXXX XXXX as agent for non-owners and non-creditors, Fay and XXXX lack standing. 
14. Due process requires the party who is directly injured by the " wrongful '' rescission to initiate a lawsuit that begins with legal standing, asserts the rescission is effective, and the grounds for why the rescission notice should be vacated. 
15. In the Trust Instrument the Trustee XXXX and the parties identified as beneficiaries lack any power to conduct or ratify any transaction or, for that matter, to conduct any administration of any ongoing activity of the trust. This is a fair reading of the trust provisions in the context of a REMIC pass-through facility 16. If any act of the trustee ( and that includes people who were " appointed '' by the named trustee ) is contrary to express provisions of the trust the act is void. 
17. XXXX XXXX XXXX and their alleged clients Fay, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX   were involved in Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices, ( UDAAP ) in Collection of Consumer Debts, and failed to comply with any obligations they have under FDCPA, in addition to any obligations to refrain from UDAAPs. Under Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act ( Dodd-Frank Act ), XXXX XXXX XXXX and their alleged clients Fay, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  are legally required to refrain from committing, UDAAP. XXXX XXXX XXXX and their alleged clients Fay, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX UDAAPs caused significant financial injury to me as consumer, erode confidence, and undermine fair competition in financial marketplace. 
18. XXXX XXXX XXXX and their alleged clients Fay, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX   under Dodd-Frank Act involved in collecting debt related to any consumer financial product or service are subject to prohibition against UDAAPs in the Dodd-Frank Act. See Dodd-Frank Act, 1002, 1031 & 1036 ( a ), codified at 12 U.S.C. 5481, 5531 & 5536 ( a ). It is prohibited for any person, to knowingly or recklessly provide substantial assistance to a covered person or service provider in violating section 1031 of the Dodd-Frank Act. See 1036 ( a ) ( 3 ), 12U.S.C. 5536 ( a ) ( 3 ).

A. Validation/Verification of Debt As you know that Fay and XXXX XXXX, and their agent XXXX XXXX XXXX are not entitled to invoke the benefits of a legal presumption, and the most reason for this fraudulent streak is the application of legal presumptions that eliminate the need to prove their case. The source of information with XXXX XXXX XXXX and their alleged clients Fay, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, that was less than credible in civil litigation it is the case of Fay as a servicer and XXXX XXXX as trustee of alleged new securitizer. That means that they are not entitled to any legal presumptions. And that means they must prove everything proffered to prove the truth of any matter asserted. 
I have rescinded the loan transaction within 03 years and as a defense to foreclosure. Section 1635 ( a ) explains in unequivocal terms how the right to rescind is to be exercised : It provides that a borrower " shall have the right to rescind.. by notifying the creditor, in accordance with regulations of the Board, of his intention to do so '' ( emphasis added ). The language leaves no doubt that rescission is affected when the borrower notifies the creditor of his intention to rescind. It follows that, so long as the borrower notifies within three years after the transaction is consummated, his rescission is timely. The statute does not also require him to sue within three years. 
The above quote was penned by Justice XXXX writing for a unanimous Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court in the land. It is the boss of bosses, ruling over all appellate and trial courts in every U.S. Jurisdiction. It leaves ZERO room for interpretation and in fact the opinion prohibits any interpretation by anyone, including judges on trial or appellate courts : Nothing in our jurisprudence, and no tool of statutory interpretation, requires that a congressional Act must be construed as implementing its closest common-law analogue. Cf. XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ). The clear import of 1635 ( a ) is that a borrower need only provide written notice to a lender in order to exercise his right to rescind. XXXX XXXX XXXX The XXXX XXXX XXXX and their alleged clients Fay, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX must know that Rescission is a FACT -- -- -- - NOT A THEORY OR CLAIM The loan was rescinded and discharged in my bankruptcy, therefore a discharged loan/debt can not be verified and or validated B. Foreclosure /Insurance Claims Paying of Alleged Accounts A. Foreclosure XXXX XXXX XXXX and their alleged clients Fay , XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX alter ego did violate TILA when shown intent to foreclose and they repeatedly scheduled wrongful foreclosure on a void deed, when I did rescind the loan within 03 years and as a defense to foreclosure, they also received my rescissions notice, and violated when wrongfully scheduled my property for foreclosure. Accordingly, I did rescind said Mortgage Loan as a full and complete defense to the Notice of Foreclosure Sale, as well as to any future foreclosure on our primary residence stated above. I did rescind said mortgage loan transactions as a Defense to Foreclosure and as Rescission by Recoupment after Three-Year Period. ( RECISSION ; .See 15 U.S.C. 1635 ( i ) ( 2 ) ; TILA ( Reg Z ), XXXX Truth in Lending Act TILA Amendment ; 15 U.S.C. 1641 et. seq ) B. Insurance Claims Paying of Alleged Accounts In XXXX, when the trust through XXXX XXXX XXXX was dissolved and the XXXX XXXX XXXX was paid through XXXX XXXX through an asset purchase agreement dated XX/XX/XXXX. The alleged creditors have also been fully paid on the Mortgage Loan by the Insurance companies other than XXXX, pursuant to Insurance Policies. Moreover, there may have been additional payments under one or more other insurance policies that I am advised may violate the rule against double recovery in the State of Virginia. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX   XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX is False trustee of the trust ; MFRA Trust XXXX-2 because XXXX XXXX disclaims any economic interest and or ownership in our loan C. Notice of Rescission/TILA I have used our rights of rescission within the prescribed time/duration. I did rescind within 03 years and again rescinded as a defense to foreclosure. You need to read the law and apply correctly. I did send these rescissions notices via certified mail and via XXXX, and I do have proof for that, and other fraudulent entities in this case, failed to take actions within 20 days window, and by operation of law the rescission is self-imposed. The statute does not allow you to send a letter, the statute says, you must file a declaratory action in court to dispute the rescission. The alleged creditors let that 20 DAYS WINDPOW close upon them. I did file these rescission notices in the court as evidence. Since you and or your client failed and let the window closed upon you, by operation of law any security interest in the property and any promissory note automatically become void, and the homeowners are automatically relieved of any obligation, including the payment of any finance or other charges ( See generally 15 U S C 1635 ( b ) et seq ; Reg. Z. ) The foreclosure intent and or scheduled by you and your agent XXXX XXXX   XXXX on a VOID instrument ( Deed of Trust ) is in violation, of rescission. Fay and XXXX have the liability of assignee, through the XXXX. The recipients of assignments -- those who assume rights and obligations from the original creditors -- often face a minefield of state and federal laws which may trigger liability. The protection conferred on assignee liability in Section 1641 ( a ) of the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ). Significantly, however, Congress deliberately limited assignee liability when it amended the Act in the early XXXX to provide as follows in 15 U.S.C. sections 1641 ( a ) : Except as otherwise specifically provided in this subchapter, any civil action for a violation of this subchapter or proceeding under Section 1607 of this title which may be brought against a creditor may be maintained against any assignee of such creditor only if the violation for which such action or proceeding is brought is apparent on the face of the disclosure statement, except where the assignment was involuntary. 
Assignees can examine the documents assigned for irregularities, and they usually make pricing decisions based on those documents. Thus, 15 U.S.C. 1641 ( a ) enable [ s ] an assignee to know with [ a reasonable degree of ] certainty upon receipt of assigned documents whether it would be subject to possible liability for the actions of the vendor. Fay and XXXX XXXX as assignees may lose the protection of Section 1641 ( a ) when other laws intervene. Assignees should always beware of such " mines '' lurking under the surface of consumer credit transactions. Under section 1641 ( d ), an assignee is subject to all claims and defenses that the consumer could assert with respect to that mortgage against the creditor. XXXX XXXX XXXX and their alleged clients Fay, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  did violate TILA when they repeatedly sent notice of default, notice of intent and or scheduled wrongful foreclosure on a void deed, when I did rescind the loan within 03 years and as a defense to foreclosure. Accordingly, we did rescind said Mortgage Loan as a full and complete defense to the Notice of Foreclosure Sale, as well as to any future foreclosure on our primary residence stated above.

D. Abusive/Deceptive/Unfair and Deceptive Practices XXXX XXXX XXXX and their alleged clients Fay, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  did not comply with all federal and state requirements in connection with the servicing as stated above in paragraphs 1-3 above. XXXX XXXX  XXXX and their alleged clients Fay, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX violated rescission laws and repeatedly scheduled for illegal foreclosure when Deed of Trust, DOT ) was VOID due rescission. Id XXXX XXXX  XXXX and their alleged clients Fay, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX were involved in Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices, ( UDAAP ) in Collection of Consumer Debts, and failed to comply with any obligations they have under FDCPA, in addition to any obligations to refrain from UDAAPs. I have correctly requested to Consumer agencies and courts to take action against, them, for this fraudulent debt, in violation of 15U.S.C. 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ), threatened to take an action that can not legally be taken or that it did not intend to take, in violation of 1692e ( 5 ), and used a false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect a debt, in violation of 1692e ( 10 ).

Under Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act ( Dodd-Frank Act ), XXXX XXXX XXXX and their alleged clients Fay, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX are legally required to refrain from committing, UDAAP, and their UDAAPs caused significant financial injury to me as consumer, erode confidence, and undermine fair competition in financial marketplace. XXXX XXXX XXXX and their alleged clients XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX under Dodd-Frank Act involved in collecting debt related to any consumer financial product or service are subject to prohibition against UDAAPs in the Dodd-Frank Act. See Dodd-Frank Act, 1002, 1031 & 1036 ( a ), codified at 12 U.S.C. 5481, 5531 & 5536 ( a ). It is prohibited for any person, to knowingly or recklessly provide substantial assistance to a covered person or service provider in violating section 1031 of the Dodd-Frank Act. See 1036 ( a ) ( 3 ), 12U.S.C. 5536 ( a ) ( 3 ).

E. Failure to Response/Acquiescence/Admission Please note that from XXXX to XXXX I sent to your office and others our, NOTICE OF RESCISSION AS DEFENDE TO FPRECLOSURE PURSUANT TO 11. U.S.C 1635 ( i ) ( 2 ) and prior Law Firm XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, ( XXXX ) representing Fay and XXXX XXXX without reading it, acknowledged our Rescission Notice. Accordingly, I hereby rescind said Mortgage Loan as a full and complete defense to your illegal intent to illegally foreclose on our promissory residence pursuant to 11 U.S.C 1635 ( i ) ( 2 ), when I am not in default. Through the Qualified Written Request, ( QWR ) and other Dispute, and Cease and Desist letters/Notices, I have requested the accountings, ledgers as mentioned on page 3 above which were not provided.

F. Compliance XXXX, Fay and XXXX did not comply with all federal and state requirements in connection with your servicing as stated above in paragraphs 1-5 above, violated rescission laws and repeatedly scheduled for illegal foreclosure when Deed of Trust, ( DOT ) was VOID due rescission. Id XXXX, Fay and XXXX were involved in Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices, ( UDAAP ) in Collection of Consumer Debts, and failed to comply with any obligations they have under FDCPA, in addition to any obligations to refrain from UDAAPs. 

G. XXXX XXXX XXXX is nonexistent inactive trust, ( NEIT ) Note the assumption that lawyers including XXXX XXXX XXXX its alter ego are hired by servicers [ Fay and XXXX  ] and not the Trustee [ XXXX XXXX XXXX ( NEIT ) ] Thus the servicers hire counsel [ XXXX XXXX XXXX ] through third party venders XXXX and then order that foreclosure be brought in the name of the alleged trust, [ NEIT ]. But if there is no trust or no acquisition of the debt, or authorization the servicer is without legal authority to do anything, much less collect money from homeowners or bring foreclosure actions. 
H. XXXX XXXX XXXX knowingly and substantially assists or encourages a clients wrongdoing XXXX XXXX XXXX lawyers knowingly and substantially assists or encourages a clients ( Fay and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) wrongdoing, and I XXXX XXXX was harmed by the clients misconduct and will sue the XXXX XXXX XXXX and its lawyers in tort for allegedly aiding and abetting the clients misdeeds, while acting as a vehicle of fraud. 
First, XXXX XXXX XXXX lawyers may be sued for fraud or negligent misrepresentation in litigation, as where, for example, they are alleged to have knowingly misrepresented material facts in negotiations Second, transactional practice is such that business lawyers are natural targets of fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims by me based on alleged false statements and failures to disclose information. 
Third, clients ( Fay and XXXX XXXX XXXX may sue their own XXXX XXXX   XXXX lawyers for alleged fraud and misrepresentation in appropriate cases Misrepresentation is fraudulent if the maker ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) : ( a ) knows or believes that the matter is not as XXXX XXXX XXXX represents it to be, ( b ) XXXX XXXX XXXX does not have the confidence in the accuracy of XXXX XXXX XXXX representation that XXXX XXXX XXXX states or implies, or ( c ) XXXX XXXX XXXX knows that XXXX XXXX XXXX does not have the basis for XXXX XXXX XXXX representation that XXXX XXXX  XXXX states or implies