Consumer complaint received 07/26/2016 about Debt collection (Mortgage) with SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC. (GA).
Issue: Taking/threatening an illegal action
Sub-issue: Seized/Attempted to seize property

Complaint: This is a Claim of continuous UDAAP violations pursuant to FCRA, FDCPA 15 U.S. Code 1692e - False or misleading representations, 15 U.S. Code 1692f - Unfair Practices, and O.C.G.A. 9-3-25 Georgia statute of limitation. - These violations require urgent attention by the CFPB Administrative Tribunal in that the continuous nature of the deceitful acts are inflecting severe harm upon us. 

1. Select Portfolio Servicing Inc. and XXXX XXXX, XXXX Has, yet again made another representation and implication that seizure, attachment, or sale of our property in a non-judicial foreclosure sale scheduled for XXXX XXXX, XXXX is imminent unless a loan modification or short sale is agree too by us. See EXHIBIT-G, SPS Inc. ( sales notice ), then see EXHIBIT-H, ( SPS Inc. 's third party letter urging us to modify, alter or otherwise recommit to a charged-off and closed loan ). 

2. This is a case where SPS Inc. bought collection rights to an account that both SPS Inc. and XXXX knew or should have known were unenforceable ( charged-off and closed ), or had insufficient information to support collection of the debt claimed to be owed. 

3. SPS Inc. after acquiring the dead account began publicly broadcasting threatening messages calming they have a right to foreclosure threw a secured interest. 

4. This is SPS Inc. 6th attempt in the past 7 month threatening collection of unsecured debt and/or unsecured property by means of illegal foreclosure. 

5. SPS Inc. and XXXX XXXX XXXX actions amounts to debt collection thru intentional inflection of emotional distress, and should not be allowed to happen by this Administrative tribunal. 

6. SPS Inc. and XXXX XXXX XXXX. has, on the XXXX day of XXXX, initiated a non-judicial foreclosure action in defiance of an existing Cease and Desist letter, ( See respondents expressed Intent to comply stated in CFPB case # XXXX at the respondents opening paragraph 1 ), then see EXHIBIT-K. ( ambiguous letter sent by us mail to us on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX ). 

7. SPS Inc. has sent a foreclosure document when both SPS Inc. and XXXX XXXX XXXX. have personal knowledge that the loan they are attempting to foreclosure on is dead because the account was charged-off and closed by XXXX on or before XXXX XXXX, XXXX, as evidenced by the exhibits cited in paragraph 10 ( A ), ( B ), ( C ) and ( D ) below. 

8. Both SPS Inc. and XXXX XXXX XXXX. have personal knowledge that any rights to default debt after 4 years is barred by Georgia statute of limitation, O.C.G.A. 9-3-25. 

9. When a note is charged off and closed. The note no longer exists. It can not be sole because the purported loan that backs the note is gone. Thus, the note and loan is gone. All that remains is collection rights to the default debt which is now time barred. 

10. Note that nether SPS Inc., or its clients have a security interest in our property as is evidenced by the following documented proof. to wit, A. The loan was CHARGE-OFF as of XXXX XXXX, XXXX, see EXHIBIT-001C ; and B. The LOAN was CLOSED as of XXXX XXXX, XXXX, see EXHIBIT-001A ; and C. The collection rights was sold to SPS Inc. in XXXX, years after the loan had been charge-off and CLOSED in XXXX, see EXHIBIT-001B ; and D. As proof that any collection rights to any default debt resulting from the charge-off and closure of account # XXXX is now time barred by GA 's 4 year statute of limitation, see EXHIBIT-001A ( it show when the statute began to run ). note that as of today 's date the statute of limitation has already lapsed. 

When the original subprime loan was charged off and closed by XXXX on or before XXXX, XXXX, XXXX the loan and note no longer exist ( according to UCC requirements ). All that remained was collection rights to possible default debt. AND, those rights can be transferred by assignment ONLY, and not by " transfer '' of a negotiable note

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation