Consumer complaint received 2022-02-22
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Seized or attempted to seize your property
Company: Old Republic National Title Holding Co. (IL)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX IL XXXX XX/XX/XXXX VIA EMAIL and CFPB Bad Faith Letter and Claim Demand for to XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) under Policy XXXX ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), Issuer of Commitment XXXX ; The Fund, Underwriter ; and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and its Board of Governors ( collectively XXXX ) as XXXX, XXXX and XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX. 

Dear XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX : Please accept this correspondence as my formal written demand for XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX available policy limits under my XXXX XXXX XXXX policy XXXX and pursuant to XXXX guidelines about increased up to 150 % or {$250000.00}, to cover losses in transactions related to my purchase of property located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX IL XXXX which was illegally foreclosed by unknown to me parties to collect non-existing debt which I never had. 

This is my Title insurance companys duty to investigate my Title before the closing to insure that here no not unknown to me clouds which can result in attacks on my Title ; and process a claim if there has been a loss when is not of the insureds wrongdoings. 

Legal Grounds for Demand : 1. Reasonability of Request : XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX issued and sold me a Title Insurance policy XXXX, effective date XX/XX/XXXX, in {$170000.00} coverage available for my loss. According to XXXX and XXXX Guidelines, this policy must automatically increase to 150 % after five years. This provision applied to my policy on XX/XX/XXXX. 

2. Duty to initiate a Settlement. Illinois has a well-established statutory and case law which requires insurers to attempt in good faith to effectuate settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear. An insurer also has an implied duty to accept reasonable settlement demands on covered claims within the policy limits. The case law speaks of an insurers liability for breach of the duty of reasonable settlement. An insurer that breaches the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing may be liable for the full amount of the judgment based on breach of contract. If the carrier fails to reasonable settle a case within policy limits, it may be exposed to bad faith liability.

3. XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXXXXXX Bad Faith and liabilities. Illinois common law defines bad faith as arbitrary, reckless, indifferent, or intentional actions or disregard of the interests of the person owed a duty ; however, in practice, bad faith presents itself as the insurance company placing its own interest ahead of its insured. To prevent insurers from acting in bad faith, Illinois imposes a duty to deal fairly & in good faith; exemplary damages, attorney fees for breach of contract. The definition of bad faith under Illinois law is arbitrary, reckless, indifferent, or intentional actions or disregard of the interests of the person owed a duty. 

4. XXXX  liability for its members misconduct. XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX who establish Title Insurance industry customs, practices, standards and claims adjusting procedure. Trade Associations have liability if they purport to undertake a duty to consumers or employees within their industry, set standards, exert control over members of the association, make statements not supported by actual research, ect.

5. Amount of Demand under Insurance Limits : $ {$250000.00} ( or 150 % after 5 years ) 6. Demand time limit : 30 calendar days from this letter, starts XX/XX/XXXX. 

7. Claims involved : This Demand is intended to settle only claims with XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX entities and their CEO/employees under my Insurance policy, and against XXXX and its Board members under Trade Association liabilities because if I am forced to proceed with the Court, XXXX will be definitely included in my list of Defendants. 


I reserve my right to proceed with claims against other parties such as XXXX XXXX, former XXXX CEO, now XXXX Mortgage ; XXXX XXXX  ; XXXX XXXX entities, et al ;, XXXX XXXX XXXX  ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, owner of XXXX XXXX XXXX, owner of XXXX XXXX, I nc. formerly XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX  who forged documents and initiated illegal foreclosure XXXX, XXXX  vs. XXXX ; and other parties involved in this scam. 

Exemptions. 


Exemption such as fake Mortgages with XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX is not applicable. 

I never had any mortgages in the original amount {$130000.00} and {$34000.00} with XXXX who was not the Lender but merely aggregator of my data for undisclosed to me XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX and its affiliates, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( now XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ; or from anyone else. Here were no money involved in my transaction paid to me or on my behalf. 



XXXX never loaned me any money and merely allowed to use their name on documents as a pretender lender to obtain my signature on Mortgage and Note which were used by XXXX XXXX in their securitization scheme, which was already established with the prior owner XXXX. During my transaction with XXXX and XXXX XXXX et. al, here already was a prior Pooling and Servicing Agreement already in existence and known to the title agent. If at the item of the loan closing there was an assignment and assumption agreement already in place. 



Thus, the investors had already purchased so-called mortgage backed securities, that included a description of a temporary set of notes ( XXXX XXXX filings ), that would be replaced by real notes and security instruments pledged as security to the holders of so-called asset backed securities, and if the terms of the pledge within the SPV was an allocation of funds contrary to the terms of the note and mortgage, and if the title agent was aware of sufficient facts to put him on notice that ( a ) undisclosed third parties were involved in the transaction and ( b ) that undisclosed fees were being paid and ( c ) that this could create grounds for three-day rescission, but for the fact that the real lender has not been disclosed assuming all of that, because that is actually what happened does that not mean that there was actual knowledge by the title agent that there are dozens and perhaps hundreds of even thousands of people who have an equitable and legal interest in the security instrument encumbering the property. 

Generally, the title policy does not require intervention of the carrier until there is a claim. But the errors and omissions carrier for the title agent when put on notice of the claim would have an immediate interest in mitigating the potential loss, and specially actual loss of the property. It is not that there is a hypothetical cloud on title, it is real from the moment that the transaction was consummated and even long before the transaction was consumated. 

I had no reason to suspect fraud when I signed mortgage and Note to disinterested parties XXXX since this information was intentionally and aggressively concealed and continues to be concealed from me. 

It took me a substantial amount of time and money, including consultations with securities experts, to figure out that I became a victim of the biggest economic fraud operated by XXXX XXXX Banks who secretly entered lending market place, under glimpse of fake lenders to deceptively obtain home buyers signatures on documents which are used in their securitization ABOUT debt. 

I didnt know that during all time in question I was dealing with undisclosed to me investment bank, XXXX XXXX XXXX et al who made about 18500 % (!!! ) interest trading my identity on the open market, on top of their existing securitization scheme where actual money were involved only with prior owner XXXX XXXX, who sold it to XXXX XXXX in XXXX who sold it to me in XXXX. Neither XXXX or I never had any loans ( means nobody loaned us any real money ). We only received information about money, which does not constitute mortgage or loan or debt. 

It was not known to me until recent time ; but it was known by XXXX who had duty to investigate my claim when I submitted it, which XXXX refused to do, acting in bad faith, and continue to refuse falsely claiming exemption of non-existing Mortgages with XXXX. 

I never had any mortgages with XXXX, who was not the Lender ; and XXXX did not assigned my alleged Mortgage to XXXX, which itself was an illegal transfer since ( 1 ) XXXX was not a lender ; ( 2 ) XXXX  was not XXXX  agent ; had no authority to accept such assignment and never accepted any Assignments from XXXX since according to XXXX  own words it is not a Mortgagee ; ( 3 ) assignment of mortgage ( even when the mortgage and the lender are legit ) without Note is legal nullity in all jurisdictions. 

XXXX XXXX banks  have figured out a way to parse every potential attribute of every actual and implied transaction. This has resulted in innumerable ways in which the documents are not only fabricated but inconsistent. Most people, including myself, wrongfully assumed that some transactions have been memorialized. In fact, no transaction has been memorialized, and the apparent and falsely implied transfer of the note conflicts with the apparent and falsely asserted transfer of the mortgage are actually in conflict. 

It is for this reason all assignments of mortgage executed by XXXX  are void. XXXX  is only an agent and it is only an agent for a lender or a successor lender. All documents executed on behalf of XXXX  should announce, and sometimes do an ounce, that they are executed on behalf of a specific principle, as successor to the previous principal who could issue instructions to XXXX. 

It is widely known and fully understood that XXXX is nothing more than a nominee and therefore a potential agent if a principal has a contractual relationship with XXXX. It disclaims any rights to payments, notes, mortgages, debts, or obligations. It has no interests of its own since it neither was involved in the lending or servicing of any transaction that was labeled as a loan. 
This it can only serve as a potential agent to a master or principal who legally possesses some legal right, title, or interest to something ( asset, loan etc. ) and issues instructions to the agent to perform such acts as the master or principal has instructed. 
No such instructions are ever issued by XXXX because no such set of instructions can claim, much less warrant, any right, title, or interest to any debt, obligation, note, or mortgage lien.

Succession as to ownership and authority over an alleged mortgage loan can only occur if one of two things occurs. A third party bona fide purchaser for value buys the loan account and assumes liability for any violations or problems or losses in the future OR third party bona fide purchaser for value buys the company who owns the loan account and assumes liability for any violations or problems or losses in the future. This has never been alleged or proven in any court of law or equity. 



Alleged Plaintiff XXXX XXXX  never had any of my documents ; and fake Assignment of Mortgage ( legal nullity ) prepared and recorded by XXXX XXXX XXXX dba XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on behalf of XXXX  to XXXX XXXX  is essentially void. Even IF XXXX were a real lender, they are bankrupt and non-existing since XXXX, as well as XXXX XXXX  XXXX which existed in name only. Thus, in XXXX here were no single party who can legally assign anything to XXXX XXXX  ; and assignment of Mortgage without Note by XXXX  who was not an agent to XXXX, is legal nullity in all jurisdictions. 



The effective purchases of mortgages that must be memorialized by an assignment of mortgage that is attendant or contemporaneous with the purchase of the underlying alleged unpaid obligation due from the homeowner. Homeowners are misinformed about presumed existence of a valid loan and transfer of ownership and rights to administer, collect and enforce the alleged underlying obligation, which either never existed, like in my situation ; or has ceased to exist and is not reported as a loan account receivable on the accounting ledger of any person or business entity - like in XXXX XXXX transactions. 



The reason for that is that the underlying obligation can ONLY be the original transaction that induced the homeowner to issue a note and mortgage in exchange of REAL money as a loan I never seen a cent loaned to me by XXXX ; I never received any confirmation from XXXX  that they accepted any mortgages from XXXX ; my Note is masterfully forged and missing from all records since the Judge criminally concealed purportedly original from my case records ; and XXXX as Plaintiff always refused to communicate with me and now claims that it has no relationship to this matter. 



Here is no one including XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX or XXXX  who ever claimed to be a holder in due course. But lawyers, who even did not know who was their client, argued as though they are entitled to the presumptions that attend the status of a holder in due course. 



XXXX XXXX, alleged Servicer has absolutely no records of my alleged loan or about this foreclosure. 

Plaintiff XXXX XXXX  and XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Master Servicer XXXX XXXX deny its involvement, even when I asked to provide me a proof of money after sale of my property to third party who is currently in illegal passion of stolen from me property. 



Realtor XXXX XXXX, who illegally sold my property, has no idea who was his client since he received all instruction from XXXX  website called XXXX XXXX XXXX or XXXX. 



I never saw any Notices of Default or any allegation or any proof that anyone suffered a default as a result of not receiving a payment from me. The reason is simple. If they were never entitled to receive the money there was no default. And if the default status has been transferred to third undisclosed parties then those parties must nevertheless be identified and satisfy the conditions precedent to making any claims to administer, collect or enforce. 



Since there is no allegation of financial harm, and no allegation of purchase of an existing unpaid underlying obligation, the constitutional requirements for a case in controversy are violated since my entire transaction was with undisclosed Investment Bank  who seek additional profits on top of enormous revenues received from all prior securitizations schemes, started from XXXX, information about which was passed to me as a loan in advancing an illegal scheme for profit. 



Permanent Illegal Lien in my property. In the case of lending actual money for my purchase, there would be easily confirmable supporting documents that show proof of payment from XXXX, along with an entry on the accounting ledger of the alleged lender showing a decrease in one asset category ( e.eg. Cash ) and a corresponding increase in another category of assets ( e.g. loans receivable or loan account receivable ) ; as well as proof of payment during all alleged sales No such documents or ledger entries occur in the world of securitization. Without a sale of the asset ( e.g. loan ) the representations and claims, correspondence, notices, allegations, and assertions in and out of court are without any foundation. What the major XXXX XXXX brokers did, was remove physical delivery and replace it with the appearance of physical delivery, so that production of a copy of the note along with some assertion, affidavit, or allegation about the note, would give rise to the assumptions that something real was happening to the note. In fact, it affirmatively appears that in most cases, the note was destroyed to prevent two fictional trees ( or more ) from growing from a lie.

3. Unmarketable Title. After initial securitization scheme was established by unknown to me Investment Bank  ( likely XXXX XXXX ), no further real financing is necessary for two reasons : the borrower usually never asks for the proof of lending ; here is no creditor for the property Seller who can accept this payment to release the lien since nobody owns the account receivable where these money can be deposited. 

a. I applied for a loan and assumed that I get a " loan ''. I assumed the XXXX wired actual money. In reality I inherited information about the original securitization scheme with XXXX  masqueraded as mortgage where nobody loaned me any money, only information about money. 

b. As the result, nobody paid XXXX Bank any money to satisfy seller XXXX XXXX mortgage since XXXX herself had no mortgages, only information about XXXX  scheme. In fact, XXXX Bank would not be able to deposit any money on XXXX non-existing account receivable - even if I paid all cash for the property. Similarly, XXXX XXXX never received a cent from sale of my property on XX/XX/XXXX, or {$130000.00} even though I specifically demanded to disclose if XXXX Bank did received it and deposited in account receivable for my alleged loan As the result, this prior Mortgages remain on the chain of Title as illegal liens ( clouds ) which are impossible to remove since here is nobody who has authority to remove them because no one owns account receivables or rights to remove these fictitious liens and will cloud my Title forever. 



4. Defectively recorded documents. All documents pertaining to my purchase and fake transfers are fraudulent, forged and defectively recorded.

5. Taking into consideration the clear negligence ( should be called fraud ) established by XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX, it seems difficult to argue that if I file my case with the Court, a verdict against you and your executive officers and personnel would not likely be greatly in excess your available policy limits. 

I am not talking about your own litigation expenses to defend numerous individuals and corporate entities XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX, and XXXX as its trade association. 

I expect you to offer the full $ {$250000.00} policy limit ( {$170000.00} at 150 % ) to protect your best interests and insulate you from an excess judgment plus litigation expenses and negative public exposure since I plan to bring XXXX and its Board as co-defendants in my case based on trade association liabilities to injured clients. 

I am willing to accept the $ {$250000.00} as full and final settlement of all claims with XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX and XXXX. 

I trust that XXXX will promptly comply with my demand. I would assume that XXXX join this position because it is your duty to protect your client and his best interests. I believe XXXX Title failure to offer the available policy limits to protect their insured are operating in bad faith. XXXX title failure to provide limits would be demonstrative of greater concern for XXXX monetary interests than the financial hardship and devastation to their insured.

Please let me know XXXX, XXXX, tXXXX XXXX and XXXX response to this settlement demand within the next 30 days. I look forward to hearing back from you. 

Very truly yours, XXXX XXXX