Consumer complaint received 03/25/2018 about Debt collection (Mortgage debt) with Seterus, Inc. (NJ).
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action
Sub-issue: Seized or attempted to seize your property

Complaint: XX/XX/XXXX To : VIA ONLINE at https : //www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint/ Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX .

Washington, D.C. XXXX  Re : Unfair, deceptive, and unlawful mortgage servicing, dual tracking, and foreclosure practices by Seterus, Inc. and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX pertaining to the subject property XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NJ XXXX ( Loan Acct. # : XXXX  ) ( Foreclosure Docket No. : XXXX ) To whom it may concern, I am writing this correspondence to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) to report the unfair, deceptive, and unlawful servicing, modification, and foreclosure practices by Seterus, Inc. ( Seterus ) as the purported servicer for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) who Seterus claims is the owner of my mortgage loan that was originated onXX/XX/XXXX in the name of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), a doing business as effective XX/XX/XXXX upon XXXX XXXX XXXX   ( XXXX ) merging with and into XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), the latter of whom changed its name to XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  ), and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) then became a tradename.

This communication shall server as an official appeal under 12 CFR 1024.41 ( h ) of Seterus recent denial of my modification request, and Seterus continuation of the Sheriff Sale of my property scheduled for XX/XX/XXXX by unlawful means and methods as document herein.

First and foremost, on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX  commenced a foreclosure debt collection action by complaint filed with the Superior Court of New Jersey, and shortly thereafter, submitted the first of three instruments asserted to be a true copy of the original note in dispute, wherein there was no indorsements by XXXX as the original payee upon the instrument ( See Exhibit 1 ).

Then, on XX/XX/XXXX the Office of Thrift Supervision ( OTS ) seized XXXX, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ( FDIC ) became the receiver and entered into a Purchase & Assumption Agreement ( P & AA ) the same day with XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), the latter of whom has confirmed in multiple court proceedings and filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ) that the aforementioned XXXX XXXX XXXX only transferred servicing of residential mortgage loans serviced by XXXX  prior to its receivership on XX/XX/XXXX, and not ownership of the underlying loans that were already securitized.

Thus from the inception of the aforementioned foreclosure action commenced in the year XX/XX/XXXX throughout the mid-point of year XX/XX/XXXX, there were no ( emphasis added ) instrument recorded by the Office of the Clerk for XXXX   County, NJ ( XXXX County Clerk ) asserting a transfer of my mortgage loan from XXXX to the FDIC, XXXX, or any other parties for XXXX remained the mortgagee of record, and the only ( emphasis added ) note instrument submitted into the Superior Court of New Jersey up to that moment, was still payable to XXXX ( See Exhibit 1 ).

Then, onXX/XX/XXXX, foreclosure attorneys XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) out of XXXX, NJ filed a Certification In Support of Proceeding With Foreclosure Notwithstanding Lack of Assignment of Mortgage and enclosed Exhibit A which is a note instrument certified to be a true copy of the original that I signed on XX/XX/XXXX, and there are no ( emphasis added ) indorsements by XXXX as the original payee upon the instrument ( See Exhibit 2 ).

Then, on XX/XX/XXXX, Seterus created and caused to be recorded by the XXXX County Clerk two out of sequence, forged, falsely acknowledged, and void instruments titled NEW JERSEY ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE that serve as the basis of Seterus purported right to deny me a modification to save my home from the Sheriff Scheduled on XX/XX/XXXX, wherein : 1. the first of two instruments recorded electronically at XXXX XXXX. on XX/XX/XXXX, misrepresents that XXXX   transferred my mortgage ( without any mention of a transfer of the note ) to XXXX XXXX  on XX/XX/XXXX ( See Exhibit 3 ), before the recording of the last of two instruments recorded electronically the same date at XXXX XXXX. misrepresenting that XXXX   as the purported attorney-in-fact for the FDIC transferred my mortgage ( without any mention of a transfer of the note ) to XXXX  on XX/XX/XXXX ( See Exhibit 4 ). ; 2. there is no proof or evidence that the FDIC owned or took possession of my mortgage loan. ; 3. there is no proof that the FDIC authorized XXXX  to act as the FDICs attorney in fact as of XX/XX/XXXX. ; AND 4. XXXX   already admitted under oath in court proceedings and filings with the SEC that that the aforementioned XXXX XXXX XXXX  only transferred servicing of residential mortgage loans serviced by XXXX prior to its receivership on XX/XX/XXXX, and not ownership of the underlying loans that were already securitized.

Additionally, the aforementioned void and out of sequence instruments titled NEW JERSEY ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE that were created by Seterus, and recorded by the XXXX County Clerk on XX/XX/XXXX( See Exhibits 3 and 4 ), and heavily relied upon by Seterus as the purported servicing agent for XXXX XXXX, displays general misrepresentations as to the alleged transfer of my mortgage loan, the names and alleged signatures of fictitious persons misrepresenting their identities and knowledge as to the whereabouts of my mortgage loan, and a false acknowledged by a notary public employed by XXXX, all of which constitutes continued violations of the prohibitions under 1. the XX/XX/XXXX consent judgment In the Matter of : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. ( XXXX  ) ( See Exhibit 5 ). ; AND 2. theXX/XX/XXXX National Mortgage Settlement ( NMS ) ( See Exhibit 6 ) wherein XXXX  and its affiliates were prohibited from further engagement in the unfair, deceptive, and illegal practices cited by the United States of America and 49 State Attorney Generals ( including the New Jersey Attorney General ) in United States of America v. Bank of America Corporation , et al. ( Case No. XXXX ) ( See Exhibit 7 ) for which I was made a party to the action by the New Jersey Attorney General ( NJ AG ) pursuant to consumer enforcement authorities bestowed upon the NJ AG along with parens patriae and common law.

Arguably, the most egregious example of Seterus unfair, deceptive, and illegal practices is displayed within the application for Entry of Final Judgment submitted to the Superior Court of New Jersey on XX/XX/XXXX, wherein a suddenly appearing undated stamp presented as an indorsement in blank by XXXX appears ( See Exhibit 2A ), after ( emphasis added ) the same indorsement in blank did not exist on the alleged true copies of my note that were previously filed in the same foreclosure action in the year of XX/XX/XXXX ( See Exhibit 1 ) and again on XX/XX/XXXX as Exhibit A ( See Exhibit 2 ). Furthermore, because of the foregoing facts, coupled with the XX/XX/XXXX deposition of XXXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. v. XXXX XXXX, et al. ( Case No. : XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  ) ) in the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX   for XXXX  County, Florida, annexed hereto as Exhibit 2B, Seterus and or its predecessor XXXX illegally affixed the undated stamp ( i.e. not an original blue ink signature ) upon a counterfeit note instrument, constituting continued unlawful practices prohibited by the XX/XX/XXXXNational Mortgage Settlement ( See Exhibit 6 ).

Next, although Seterus is claiming that XXXX XXXX is the owner of my mortgage loan, I have never ( emphasis added ) received a Notice of Sale / Transfer as required under 15 U.S.C. 1641 ( g ) from any party ( emphasis added ) including Seterus and or XXXX XXXX, asserting to be the new creditor for my mortgage loan that was originally made payable to XXXX XXXX.

XXXX, setting aside the aforementioned grave concerns regarding my mortgage loan and if Seterus has any right to foreclose on behalf of XXXX XXXX, I am extremely concerned that Seterus denied me a modification and has chosen instead to proceed with the Sheriff Sale of my property scheduled forXX/XX/XXXX.

Wherefore, I am now putting the CFPB on notice with this communication and exhibits annexed hereto in support, of Seterus unfair, deceptive, and unlawful practices including the unlawful foreclosure of my property and the unfair denial of a modification that I desperately need and deserve ( in light of the aforementioned document irregularities ) in order to prevent the unnecessary and unjust Sheriff Sale of my property scheduled for XX/XX/XXXX.

Respectfully Submitted, XXXX XXXX XXXX

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