Consumer complaint received 2022-09-28
Product: Mortgage — FHA mortgage
Issue: Closing on a mortgage — 
Company: Mr. Cooper Group Inc. (PA)

I XXXX XXXX declare Under Penalty of Perjury the claims made by me are true with the best of my abilities and knowledge. 
Notice of Dispute Violations : -Holder in due course Rule 6000 -False and misleading business practices 15 U.S.C 45 - Federal Trade Commission ACT Section 5 - FDCPA 15 U.S.C 1692F The agreement is void due to the lender failure to perform their duty obligations under the contract.

Willful Violations of the Rule and contract agreement : In adopting this Rule, the Commission determined that it constitutes an unfair and deceptive practice within the meaning of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act ( 15 U.S.C. 45 ) for a seller, in the course of financing a consumer purchase of goods or services, to employ procedures which make the consumer 's duty to pay independent of the seller 's duty to fulfill his obligations. In the course of public proceedings of the XXXX the XXXX documented numerous cases where consumer purchase transactions were financed in such a way that the consumer was legally obligated to make full payment to a creditor despite breach of warranty, misrepresentation, and even fraud on the part of the seller. 
Under ordinary contract law, the promises of the parties to a sale transaction are mutually dependent. A seller is entitled to payment provided he delivers what he promised to deliver. If the seller fails to deliver what was promised, the consumer 's obligation to pay may be reduced or even eliminated. However, it is possible for a seller to arrange credit terms for buyers which separate the consumer 's legal duty to pay from the seller 's legal duty to keep his promises. 


The written agreement does not provide me with the knowledge or show I gave the lender authorization or permission for the bank to receive {$130000.00} in actual cash value funded by me in the promissory note ; then use the note to fund a bank loan check back to me which obligated me to give the bank {$130000.00} plus interest for free. It was never my intent to fund my own bank loan check of {$130000.00} and to also be required to pay monthly payments plus interest. It was never my intent to give a security interest in my property as collateral to fund any obligation under these terms. 
This is a willful intent on the bank and their policies knowingly the promissory note funded the check which produced equal value to the bank loan check without any consideration from the lender. The lender has not loan anything of cash value to obtain the promissory note therefore, the bank did not invest any legal tender or depositors money to obtain the promissory note. The contract was not clear enough to decline what was being promised. The contract was formed under duress by having me sign an unconscionable contract that no reasonable or informed person would agree to. 

Right Path has sent me presentments using profane language with the obligations to perform under a contract without receiving any benefit or consideration in return. I have disputed the validity of the alleged debt. In return, Right Path Servicing has tried to validate a debt that has no connection to them, by furnishing forms to create a false belief that the original creditor is participating in the collection or an attempt to collect a debt allegedly owed. Since they cant validate the debt ; a new contract was created to coerce me into believing the original lender provided me with the consideration in receiving actual cash value from them. I have requested the original contract which would include the endorsed note and security instrument and I have received presentment which appears to be a copy. Counterfeit documents are unacceptable in the connection with any debt. Especially, in the event they are making strong allegations that I owe an alleged debt. I have sent notice of dispute under RESPA and requested for the original documents again only to be told the documents are being retained as its my obligation to pay. Why would a contract in its original state be retained from the actual parties involved in the transaction? Who would retain this information from the actual parties involved in the transaction? Only to produce counterfeit documents alleging that a debt is owe to them. This is unethical advertisement distorting the facts of the actual binding contract. 

With the meeting of minds on creating a contract, the lender has not signed the contract, provided full disclosure of said contract terms and refuses to provide the original endorse note and mortgage showing the chain of title. The contract produced is unilateral and not mutual dependent of one another. A lawful contract has two signatures and obligates both parties. I have the right to be treated with respect, fairness and dignity in the connection to any debt. I have never done business with Right Path Servicing, and they wish to carry out on a contract without any consideration making the contract void.