Consumer complaint received 09-08-2016 about Mortgage (Home equity loan or line of credit) with Specialized Loan Servicing LLC (CA).
Issue: Loan servicing, payments, escrow account

Complaint: Beginning XXXX, 2009, a cadre of financial institutions have improperly posed as the creditor, i.e. the party to whom the mortgage debt is owed, in connection with debt encumbering real property of my estate. After years of litigation, and battling absurd arguments such as, " we can enforce the debt even if we stole it, it 's a bearer instrument under UCC 3, '' it is clear that none of the financial institutions present own or have a right to enforce the debt instruments. The Court has now finally determined that the Note at issue is not negotiable instrument, and therefore not subject to UCC 3, and thus the institutions can not enforce the debt, " even if they stole it. '' After changing the identity of the creditor numerous times, the institutions most recently asserted the owner of the debt as, " the Bank of New York Mellon as Trustee for XXXX XXXX, asserts the right to enforce the Note as the owner of a bearer instrument, '' and then when I proved that was an impossibility, the institutions pivoted to assert the exact opposite, " the Bank of New York Mellon as Trustee for XXXX XXXX agrees it is not the owner of the Note. '' I have been forced to litigate the institutions ' moving target assertions for over four years. The servicing institutions involved XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, assert they are attempting to enforce the debt on behalf of the Bank of New York Mellon as Indenture Trustee for XXXX XXXX ( BONYM ), with BONYM asserting it is attempting to collect the debt on behalf of " XXXX note holder holders '' of XXXX XXXX. However during their deposition testimony, BONYM admitted it has no idea who the XXXX noteholders are or how they are paid. Contradicting this testimony, are the documents filed with the SEC in connection with XXXX XXXX establishing that the indenture trustee is to certify with its signature, each note issued, and is responsible for paying the note holders. If BONYM does not know who the note holders are then they are not collecting payments from me on behalf of the XXXX purported note holders of XXXX XXXX. Finally, during the recent summary adjudication proceedings, the servicing institutions and BONYM now assert that XXXX XXXX XXXX is the owner of the instruments as Owner Trustee of XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. However XXXX and its key executives are under criminal indictment for their conduct in connection with mortgage backed securities and did not assert a claim against my estate. Further, the documents filed with the SEC in connection with XXXX XXXX establish that the owner trustee, XXXX, is the only party that can engage in litigation in connection with assets of the trust. It 's clear that XXXX, did not, and is not asserting a claim against my estate, that XXXX is improperly using the name XXXX XXXX as cover to fraudulently assert a claim against my estate. Defendants ' counsel in the matter, has improperly asserted it is representing all the Defendants, when their actual client is XXXX, in order to collect fees and keep covered the issue that the note holders of XXXX XXXX are owed no amounts from me. As this agency is aware, when XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was the servicing agent their conduct was particularly egregious as summarized in the attached communications to them. After the CFPB and FTC consent judgment was issued, XXXX XXXX immediately became XXXX for obvious reasons but continues its deplorable conduct in my case. The overall issue is set out in my attached third amended complaint, which will have to be amended once again now that BONYM 's misrepresentations of ownership were revealed during the summary adjudication proceedings.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation