Consumer complaint received 2024-03-17
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (AL)

XX/XX/XXXX Property Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX CFPB Complaint ID : To be provided Copy sent via USPS Mail XXXX XXXX, XXXX Bank of America XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, NC XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX Department Bank of America, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX NC XXXX CFPB COMPLAINT : ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE We will be referring the illegal foreclosure ( explained herein ) perpetrated by Bank of America in collusion with XXXX  on our property to the Department of Justice Mortgage Fraud Division for potential criminal prosecution BANK OF AMERICA DID NOT OWN THE PROMISSORY NOTE Bank of America XXXX BofA XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, conducted a foreclosure sale of our property ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX AL XXXX ) while having full and complete knowledge that their action was illegal and fraudulent. ( See attachment. ) Bank of America had full knowledge that Countrywide had no ownership or beneficial interest on the Promissory Note ( Note ) to this property. Hometown Mortgage Hometown ) the original lender never endorsed the note to an alleged buyer - Countrywide Home Loans ( Countrywide ) and there appears no true arms-length transactional documentation of any purchase of Countrywide of the Note from Hometown.

The claim of Bank of America Corporation Home Loans ( BAC ), which acquired Countrywide, that it owns the Note as a result of the acquisition of Countrywide is false and without basis because Countrywide never owned the Note. 

BANK OF AMERICA DID NOT OWN THE MORTGAGE ( SECURITY INTEREST ) FRAUDULENT ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE The Assignment of Mortgage recorded on XX/XX/XXXX, had XXXX pages. Page XXXX and XXXX indicate the Agreement for Signing Authority between XXXX XXXX, ( XXXX ), its subsidiary XXXX Countrywide as Member and XXXX & XXXX XXXX. ( Sirote ) as XXXX, this is the law firm that appeared to have allowed its employees to be certifying officers for XXXX. ( See attachment : Assignment of Mortgage ). 

This Agreement for XXXX XXXX section was dated around XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX or XXXX years before this Assignment of Mortgage on XX/XX/XXXX. This indicates that it might be a boilerplate form previously used elsewhere. 

It should be pointed out that XXXX  has NO ( XXXX ) employees and its parent company XXXX, in a deposition, admitted to having XXXX employees. And yet at one point they are the mortgagee of record on XXXX XXXX mortgages - again with XXXX employees. 

So through agreement for signing authority they have appointed XXXX people as certifying officers ( based on a testimony of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) with essentially no checks, limitations or restrictions and no monitoring on the activities of these so-called certifying officers which has resulted in thousands of foreclosure fraud and abuses. 

XXXX XXXX OF APPOINTING AGENTS IS OUTSIDE THE LAW The Alabama Supreme Court on the case of XXXX XXXX XXXX ( No. XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXX ) ruled on XXXX XXXX that XXXX system of appointing agents is outside the law. ( See Attachment : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) The portion of AL Supreme Court ruling on this appointing of agents as outside the law reads in part : XXXX XXXX  's system of appointing agents is outside the law. 
XXXX  of people are authorized to act as certifying officers of XXXX. ( XXXX XXXX ). This term of art has no legal meaning under Alabama law. XXXX XXXX, the CEO for XXXX, testified his company has authority to foreclose because of the limited authority of these thousands of certifying officers. ( XXXX XXXX ) and even testified in front of a XXXX XXXX studying this issue that XXXX has granted XXXX people certifying XXXX status. ( XXXX XXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXX XXXX ). According to XXXX, XXXX provides its members a corporate resolution designating one or more employees of the member as a certifying officer. ( C. 807 ). Certifying officers are given authority to act in seven areas on behalf of XXXX. ( XXXX XXXX ). But nothing in the documentation provided by XXXX  indicates that any certifying officer has or had accurate knowledge of the transfers of XXXX loan. XXXX employee XXXX testified that while he XXXX was a certifying XXXX of XXXX, he did not know exactly what criteria was used to authorize him as a certifying officer or what steps were taken. Instead, he received an email from XXXX  announcing that he was now a XXXX XXXX. ( XXXX XXXX ). XXXX XXXX never filled out an application and never filed an affidavit to become a XXXX  certifying officer. ( XXXX XXXX ). 

The XXXX resolution from XXXX  to XXXX appointing certifying officers, along with the XXXX supplement granting authority to each of the XXXX different legal entities XXXX Mortgage operates under, is vague. What appears to take place is that XXXX, an entity that is a nominee of XXXX, gives XXXX a blank slate upon which to write any of its employees it chooses to act on XXXX  's behalf. In effect, MERS and XXXX have turned principal/agent law on its head : XXXX, an agent of XXXX, XXXX XXXX the XXXX to act as an agent on its behalf. If both XXXX and XXXX are the agent and the principal, then who is accountable when there is a violation of law? An agent is presumed to intend to bind his principal only and to incur no personal liability and unless an intention to substitute or super add his personal liability for or to that of his principal is clearly shown, XXXX he will not be bound in his individual capacity. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ). XXXX argues it is not an agent, but simply a nominee of XXXX. A nominee is generally understood as a person designated to act in place of another. See XXXX 's XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ). But, how can XXXX  acting in place of XXXX XXXX XXXX 's action in the appointing of certifying officers? Again, XXXX is attempting to stand XXXX letter law on its head. 

CERTIFICATION OF XXXX XXXX XXXX IS OUTSIDE THE LAW The Certification of XXXX XXXX XXXX, an employee of XXXX, of the Assignment of Mortgage is invalid, outside the law, and therefore null and void Thus, based on this important Alabama Supreme Court ruling, the signature of XXXX XXXX XXXX, an employee of XXXX is outside the law and therefore null and void. Therefore, this Assignment of Mortgage is also null and void and the Foreclosure Deed, by extension, is null and void, as Countrywide had no beneficial interest or ownership on the mortgage. 

SUMMARY Bank of America committed three criminal acts : 1 ) knowingly and maliciously falsifying and illegally fabricating the assignment of mortgage on XX/XX/XXXX, and XXXX ) knowingly and maliciously conducting an illegal foreclosure action on our property on XX/XX/XXXX that caused us untold severe emotional pain, anguish and suffering, and XXXX ) Illegally and maliciously selling our property to XXXX knowing full well that it had no ownership interest in the property. 


Bank of America remains unresponsive, after about XXXX weeks, to this complaint which might be an indirect confirmation of the all the facts and assertions we laid out and an admission of their guilt. 


XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX