Consumer complaint received 2016-08-18
Product: Mortgage — Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure — 
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (OH)

I have been the victim of a fraudulent foreclosure effort for the past 11 years. A key part of the fraud was that the original judgment was obtained by LaSalle Bank by means of a 'false and deceptive ' affidavit. LaSalle was then acquired by Bank of America. 

Recently, the CFPB issued a " Consent Order '' to a firm for using a 'deceptive ' affidavit, and I request the same be issued to BOA in my case. 

In a recent case involving File No. XXXX-CFPB - XXXX - XXXX, the CFPB issued a " Consent Order '' prohibiting the use of 'deceptive affidavits '. In the Order, the CFPB lists at least five activities that XXXX are restrained and enjoined from using including : a. Submitting to a court any affidavit in which it knows or should know an affiant represents, expressly or by implication, having personal knowledge of the validity, truth, or accuracy of the character, amount, or legal status of any Debt where that is not the case ; c. submitting any affidavit it knows or should know contains an inaccurate statement, including but not limited to a statement that attached documentation relates to the specific Consumer being sued when that is not the case ; d. submitting any affidavit in which it knows or should know that the affiant misrepresents the affiant 's review of any Original Account-Level Documentation or any other documentation that would support the Debt that is the subject of the Collection Suit ; e. submitting any affidavit in which the affiant represents, expressly or by implication, that the affiant has personally reviewed the affidavit, when it knows or should know that is not the case ; In my case, the Affidavit originally submitted to support the " Plaintiff 's Motion For Summary Judgment '' contains the essentially exact same violations that the CFPB ordered XXXX to stop using. Specifically, the Affidavit in my case : 1. Contains multiple inaccurate statements including that my wife, XXXX, and I have a 'loan account ' with the Plaintiff when my the facts clearly show otherwise -- my wife was not a signer on the Note. In the " Administrative Proceeding ' cited above, the CFPB said that even one 'inaccurate ' statement was impermissible. 

2. As a result of the inaccurate statement involving XXXX, and failing to prove it in any other manner, the Affiant clearly did not have 'personal knowledge ' of the loan account, which creates a second inaccurate statement. 

3. The Affiant also failed to ever state that the Plaintiff owned the loan. In fact, since the copy of Note that was attached to an Amended Complaint was not endorsed at all, there is no way the Affiant could have known if and when the Note was actually sold to the Plaintiff. 

4. It 's also clear that the Affiant was not familiar with the 'Account-level documentation ' because had she been, she would have clearly seen that the Trustee could not have ever owned the loan in question since it was required to be sold to the Seller ( XXXX ), then to the Depositor, ( XXXX ) and then assigned to the Trustee per the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement which governs the Trust she claims the Plaintiff represents. 

But since the note was not assigned/transferred/sold to the actual Trust, the Trustee had no power to do anything. 

5. The Affiant makes two more inaccurate statements when she states that the loan is 'in default ' since it 's clear she does not have 'personal knowledge ' of the loan account, and she states that Plaintiff is 'Authorized to do business in the State of Ohio ' when the truth is that PLaintiff was not authorized until XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. 

Given the above, it 's clear the Affiant did NOT have personal knowledge, made MULTIPLE inaccurate statements, and never stated BOA owned the note, all violations of current law. Therefore, Bank of America must forfeit the Judgment it had fraudulently obtained.