Consumer complaint received 2021-05-04
Product: Debt collection — Mortgage debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt was result of identity theft
Company: Nationwide Title Clearing, Inc. (MI)

Dear CFPB, Please find my Complaint against Nationwide Title Clearing, Inc ( NTC ) for their unlawful and deceptive business practices ; and my demand to provide full disclosures regarding OWNERSHIP of my so-called loan and identify the Principal, an owner of my purported debt who hired NTC and MERS to prepare fatally defective assignment to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( former XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) on XX/XX/XXXX. 
Mortgage assignment reflects a change in creditor ownership, while the sale of servicing rights from servicer to servicer are entirely different matters. Servicing rights do not exist in a vacuum. It must be a Principal who is the lawful owner of the debt and who has my so-called loan on their general Ledger account RECEIVABLE where my loans is RECORDED as an asset. That would be the account where debits and credits are posted, resulting in an adjustment of the value of the account. That is, in other words, the place where the loan can be found. That is the only place. There is only one way an entry is made on any ledger a transaction has occurred and the ledger shows the debit from one account and a credit to another account. Each transaction has a paper trail usually starting with receipt or payment of money. So there is a wire transfer receipt, ACH receipt, or canceled check that will prove the payment along with some bill of sale or other documents describing the transaction in which a third party has agreed to the terms. This is required by GAAP that is the law and no amount of argument can escape the simple fact that if someone is claiming an ownership of someones loan, this debt must exist.. Without the loan account receivable on a proper accounting ledger there can be no such claim and there isnt.

Self-proclaimed Servicers own nothing except servicing rights that might have been worth something if there was any owner of an account receivable with my name on it. But no such person or entity existed. Hence the servicing rights, just like the title rights in MERS and the administration rights in the named trustee were strictly an illusion. And every assignment ( transfer of ownership ) is conducted in accordance with UCC Art. 9/203, where the SALE of any mortgages can be proven by a copy of a cancelled check ; or wire transfer ; and the release of lien by the Seller.

As of today I have absolutely no knowledge who is the Lender ( which is not XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) and who is the legal owner of my purported debt who on XX/XX/XXXX hired MERS and NTC to prepare and record fatally deficient assignment to XXXX. Nobody ever confirmed to be a Seller of my loan ; along with evidence of ownership ( proof of payment ) to be the Owner of my purported debt. Moreover, from the beginning of this transaction I was actively misled about the true parties XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( former XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) who sent me a Commitment Letter on XX/XX/XXXX indicating that I will buy Calibers loan ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, who was the originator of this transaction via their Empower ; and a Big Bank ( XXXX  XXXX XXXX ) who financed my transaction with borrowed from undisclosed investors money. 

On XX/XX/XXXX someone ( who was never disclosed to me ) transferred my so-called loan to XXXX via XXXX prepared by Collateral Shipper XXXX XXXX. When I asked where XXXX was working and who authorized him to prepare this XXXX, nobody responded to my inquiry. 

On XX/XX/XXXX I received a letter from XXXX claiming that XXXX transferred them some servicing rights. Obviously, any transfers of servicing must be made after they are authorized by the legal owner of my purported debt. 

When I asked whom XXXX and XXXX is servicing and who appointed them as Servicers, both companies relentlessly lied but never gave me a clear answer who is the owner who has account receivable on their general ledger where my money are deposited who approved these changes of Servicers. 

According to XXXX, someone sold them my purported loan which is pooled in XXXX XXXX Pooled Security XXXX where XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is a Trustee. In other words, under Big Banks legend, the owner of my purported loan must be XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and BONY must be an authorized Agent of the Principal who is also a custodian for all documents, particularly Mortages and Notes. 

However here are no records of existence of any Pooled Security XXXX, no need to say nobody claimed to be a Trustor who established this pooled security. VA and HUD have absolutely no records of any sales and who is the owner of my purported debt since all their information is provided by XXXX XXXX XXXX. Moreover, VA has no idea whom the guarantee payments since all their information is provided by XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

Bear to repeat, someone transferred my loan to XXXX on my closing day, thus XXXX lied to Federal Authority that they merely assumed servicing from XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX has no idea when servicing transfer to XXXX took place ; and here is no evidence of any sales as well as no one claimed to be a Seller. 

Moreover, from XX/XX/XXXX to present time Federal Reserve purportedly purchased XXXX XXXX mortgage backed bonds thus theoretically became the creditor without any Notices to me or any releases of liens by the prior owner ( if exists ) and thus should be the Principal who hired MERS and NTC to prepare this Assignment. But the reality is that when the Federal Feserve was publicly stating that it was purchasing mortgage bonds from GSEs and the banks, none of that was true. There were no mortgage bonds. There were certificates issued to investors representing an IOU from an investment bank. The certificates were owned by investors, not by the investment banks who were selling them. The Federal reserve was purchasing thin air or blank paper created and issued by the investment banks solely for the purpose of " sale '' to the Federal reserve who hosts XXXX XXXX XXXX scheme on their XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

Yet, the Assignment states that MERS, acting on behalf of a Principal, as nominee for XXXX ( dissolved in XX/XX/XXXX ) apparently hired NTC to prepare and record this Assignment where MERS Vice President XXXX XXXX, who is personally known by Notary XXXX, transferred ownership of my purported debt ( mortgage ) without transferring the Note, to XXXX in unknown capacity on XX/XX/XXXX. 

For some reason all other parties are ignored from the chain of ownership such as XXXX, XXXX XXXX ( who is still listed as Investor/Guarantor on MERS ServicerId, while my purported mortgage appears to be inactive, thus outside of MERS authority which MERS never had with XXXX or XXXX XXXX since MERS only serves its members. Neither XXXX or XXXX XXXX never been MERS members ; thus, XXXX XXXX does not have agency relationship with MERS to authorize MERS to transfer ownership of my purported debt to anyone. 

Yet, XXXX claimed to be owner of my debt and later said that the owner is XXXX XXXX, while according to Wall Street Stockbrokers, the owner is a Trust ( here- imaginary Pooled Security XXXX where BONY is a purported Trustee ) Unfortunately for Nationwide Title Clearing and its clients, a paper assignment can not ratify an event that never occurred. The event is the purchase of a loan or many loans. The proof is not the assignment but the payment for the assignment. I dont have ANY proof of any sales. Moreover, nobody confirmed to be a SELLER. 

Nationwide Title Clearing is selling the concept that if they forge, fabricate and robosign a document at a nominal cost for the servicer that they can make the assignment ( or note ) valid. The proper way to look at it would be for NTC to actually investigate that there was a transaction and then proceed knowing the assignment could be valid and could therefore be legally ratified. If there is no transaction, there is nothing to ratify and therefore the assignment is void, not voidable, and must be remediated aka removed from the public records, as NTC agreed in the XXXX and XXXX Settlements with Attorney Generals office.

NTC refused to provide me any disclosures who is the Principal who hired MERS to act as nominee for XXXX ; and who is NTC client who is the owner of my purported debt who paid NTC commission or other fee and who instructed them to prepare, execute and file this Assignment in XXXX XXXX Recorder of Deeds. 

NTC refused to validate Mr. XXXX employment as MERS Vice President and provide me his direct contact information, where exactly Mr. XXXX works, his email and phone number, so I can contact Mr. XXXX and ask him directly regarding ownership of my purported debt and who is MERS client and the Principal whom MERS serve. 
It is not a secret and well-described in IL AG Madigans case and in NTC employee Lances deposition that people who place electronic signatures and pose as MERS VPs are actually employees of NTC who prepare documents of assignment and transfer and record them without any knowledge of any transactions ; he has no knowledge or power to stop it or to verify that it is correct. To be clear, the law requires something different. No law allows anyone to prepare, execute, notarize or record a document that is not known, for a fact, to be memorializing some actual event in the real world. No signature is valid unless the signor knows that the document is true and accurate as to what is on it. Authorization to execute an unknown document is no authorization at all. 
On XX/XX/XXXX I received a respond from NTC lawyer XXXX XXXX ( who is also a CPA ) who stated that NTC is [ .. ] simply unable to provide me the remedy that you seek and that any challenges to the assignment or any request for recorded documents to be removed from the public records are matters between you and your prior or current mortgage lenders or servicers. We are not legally authorized to provide you with the relief you seek '' Mr. XXXX statements are not true and clearly violate terms of their Settlement with Florida Attorney General in XXXX where NTC expressly consented to XXXX NTC shall ensure that no mortgage-related document is signed by NTC on behalf of a client without the client 's express and specific authorization and NTC shall maintain up to date records of such authorization. 

XXXX. To the extent necessary, NTC agrees to continue to remediate any such documents when reasonably necessary to assist any person or borrower or when required by state or local laws. 
Identical case was filed by IL Attorney General XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. According to Final Decree in Case 12-CH-o3602, Illinois vs. NTC, ORDERED that Defendant [ .. ] comply with and remain in compliance with Section 2 the Consumer Fraud Act and Section 2 of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. with the following terms : a. Defendant shall not sign a document that is recorded in the county recording offices [. ] unless the person signing the document ( the signatory ) has performed a substantive review of the information contained in the document to ensure the accuracy and validity of that information. Substantive review means that the signatory must read, understand, and review each document to be recorded.

d. Documents signed by signatories at the direction of the Defendant for the purpose of recordation in Illinois shall accurately identify the signatory s employer ( e.g., employed by Nationwide Title Clearing, Inc. ) and indicate that the signatory has the qualified authority to sign on behalf of the financial institution or mortgage servicer.

e. Documents recorded by Defendant shall accurately reflect the nature and substance of the transaction.

g. Defendant shall remediate ANY document [. ] that is found to be a cloud on title or otherwise unlawful. Defendant shall also remediate any document when reasonably necessary to assist any person or borrower, or when required by federal, state, or local law. Defendant shall establish, advertise and staff a toll- free telephone hotline where consumers may ask questions regarding any document executed by NTC , including but not limited to requests that NTC remediate a document.

Remediation means REMOVAL of bad or defective documents from the public records by NTC ; and full disclosures to the Customers, as required by the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and MI 445.903 Unfair, unconscionable, or deceptive methods, acts, or practices in conduct of trade or commerce are prohibited.

Thus, NTCs refusal to cooperate constitutes their breach of both settlements and intentional and/or negligent violations of Federal and State laws.

The Assignment prepared by NTC employee XXXX XXXX is fatally defective and contains numerous false and misleading information and must be remediated and removed immediately by NTC, as required by the Settlements. 

I further demand XXXX XXXX to provide me the name of the Principal and the legal owner of my purported debt ( if any ) who had authority to hire MERS and NTC to transfer ownership of my purported debt to XXXX. 
I demand XXXX XXXX to describe in which capacity XXXX accepted the assignment ( ownership ) of mortgage ; and why nobody assigned XXXX my Note. Mortgage Assignments : Assignment of a Mortgage Without the Underlying Note is A Nullity in all jurisdictions. It is the general rule in Florida ( where NTC is incorporated ) that the transfer of a mortgage note transfers with it the related mortgage. The mortgage note is regarded as the principal item with the mortgage being regarded as a mere accessory. 6 Fla. Jur. 2nd, Bills and Notes, Section 123. Hence the adage " the mortgage follows the note. '' " All the authorities agree that the debt is the principal thing and the mortgage an accessory. The apparent rule in Florida is that an assignment of a mortgage without an assignment of the related mortgage note is deemed a nullity and creates no right in the assignee because a mortgage is a mere lien incidental to the obligation it secures. 37 Fla. Jur. 2nd, Mortgages, Section 511. See e.g., Sobel v. Mutual Development , Inc., 313 So.2d 77 ( Fla. 1st DCA 1975 ). Vance v. Fields, 172 So.2d 613 ( Fla. 1st DCA 1965 ).

Again, ALL transfers must be conducted and authorized by a Principal who is a legit owner of the underlying obligation ( if any ). As of today here is no evidence of any ownership as well as here are no loan account receivable held on the ledger of any Company. All my payments are cashed by XXXX XXXX XXXX via XXXX who have lockbox agreements with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( the originator of my transaction ). 

All property taxes and insurances are paid by CoreLogic, who was recently accrued by XXXX  XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX via their sham conduits Mr. XXXX XXXX Holding ( owner of XXXX XXXX, former XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX-2 ) ; Senator Fund operated by XXXX banker XXXX XXXX ; and Stone Point ( operated by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Here are no single document ( except NTCs assignment ) which is related to XXXX as a Servicer no need to say owner of my purported obligation On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX sued XXXX for theft of proprietory secrets from their MSP ; and confirmed that XXXX XXXX is originating over 62 % of ALL so-called loans. XXXX XXXX processed my Application for a Loan acting on behalf of their client XXXX Mortgage who was a pretender lender hired for a small fee. 

The reason for the absence of accounting or original documents is simple. The securitization players had to avoid any loan account when they sold securities because if they owned a loan account they would be accused of selling the same loan over and over again. Instead, they sold securities representing performance data bets on nonexistent loan accounts as reported in the sole discretion of the investment bank who was operating under the fictitious name of the REMIC trust. 

The Government decided that its simply OK now to lie to consumers about who is lending them money and what risks consumers are assuming without knowing anything about it. There is no incentive at all to make a viable, workable loan that provides the benefit of a bargain to both a lender and a borrower because there is no lender. 

What we have instead are originators who pretend to be lenders ( hence pretender lenders ) and who are treated as though they are lenders even though they have no lending intent. Their intent is to make a fee which is disguised as the profit on selling a mortgage and note that they never owned. Because it is labeled as a sale the word fee is avoided. but that doesnt make it a sale.