Consumer complaint received 2020-08-19 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage — 
Company: SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.
State: MO

Complaint narrative:
As stated below I am complaining about blatant violations of Subtitle E Mortgage Servicing of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and Pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 2605 ( e ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and Reg. X 3500.21 ( e ) ( 1 ). The prospective respondents to this complaint are Select Portfolio Servicing, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Each of them acting individually and in concert with the others pursued collection of a debt that they knew did not exist. Their collective failure to respond to my questions regarding the status and ownership of their claim corroborates that conclusion. 

The foreclosure was pursued in the name of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, as trustee for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX   XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX acting but never asserting status as beneficiary under the deed of trust. Concealed from me was a web of deceit and fraud. None of those entities or implied entities ever had any ownership or authority to administer, collect or enforce my loan, which had been retired contemporaneously with origination in a concealed scheme that eliminated the loan account and eliminated the role of any lender, creditor or successor. 

XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, acting by and through their subsidiary, Select Portfolio Servicing claim that SPS is authorized to act as servicer on the account but they refuse to identify on whose behalf such servicing occurs or to establish the status of the debt or its ownership such that their claim of authority could be known or corroborated. 

The foreclosure proceedings were conducted on behalf of an entity that did not comply with a basic condition precedent in all U.S. jurisdictions -- - that the claimant must own the debt by reason of having paid for it. A mortgage or deed of trust is not subject to enforcement except by the owner of the debt. And the only way a party can own a debt under our current laws, is by paying for it. See Article 9 203 Uniform Commercial Code as adopted in all states.

Each of the above parties was a participant in an illegal scheme for profit that was masquerading as an action to recoup money for a debt that had in fact already been paid and eliminated from the records of all participants as a receivable or asset. During the whole time that the loan account referred to above was subject to claims or rights of administration, collection and enforcement the debt had been retired through a parallel scheme that was falsely labeled as securitization. 

Based upon both their refusal to answer and my own independent research, I assert that their refusal is the result of one simple fact : the loan account does not exist on the books or records of any entity as an asset of that entity. Their refusal to answer repeated inquiries about ownership of the debt corroborates my present belief that the loan was actually extinguished contemporaneously with the origination, with all parties free from any risk of loss, resulting from an influx of money from the creation, issuance, sale and trading of securities that derived their value from data about my loan. 
Such proceeds were never disclosed at origination, never disclosed in statements to me, and never allocated to the reduce any loan account because there is no loan account on the books or records of any company that claims ownership of the account. This fact was covered up by Select Portfolio Servicing who falsely claimed to be a servicer for XXXX XXXX and who participated in the fabrication of partial records showing payment history but not the establishment of the debt or who was receiving payments I made on what I thought was an existing debt. SPS never performed any servicing functions for XXXX XXXX because there were no activities that were managed, controlled or owned by XXXX XXXX. 

Based upon my independent research the absence of the above account on the books of any entity or person is the result of using parallel business schemes in which the debt was satisfied and therefore no account could be credited with either my payments or the proceeds of sale of my homestead. Therefore, their current attempt at collection, administration or enforcement is strictly for profit and not to pay a debt that has already been satisfied in full and eliminated. 

Prior to writing statutory letters seeking the specific information about the status and ownership of my transaction or obligation I had not received any answers to my previous questions regarding the identity and contact information for the entity claiming ownership of my obligation. 

I then sent a Qualified Written Request under the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act and Debt Validation Letter under the Federal Uniform Debt Collector Procedures Act to the self-proclaimed servicer, copies which are being uploaded to your agency as part of this complaint. 

There has been no response whatsoever to the questions that were asked about the status and ownership of my obligation. Analysis from leading experts in securitization of debt have informed me that claims of securitization of my transaction are false. My loan was never sold to anyone and therefore could not have been securitized. No such transaction ever occurred. The documents upon which lawyers for these players rely are fabricated for enforcement and contain false statements and false implied facts as to ownership and authority over the obligation and its administration, collection and enforcement. 

My complaint is that I am being forced to defend myself and my property from false claims and being forced to communicate with companies that have no financial interest in my loan and who refuse to provide any information that would me to determine the status and ownership of what I thought was a loan. 

Based upon expert advice corroborated by the lack of response from anyone claiming to be in the chain of ownership of the underlying obligation or anyone claiming to own the right to administer, collect or enforce my obligation, I am left with the standing inference that there is no such party and that the securitization scheme involved issuing, selling and trading securities deriving apparent value from third party promises arising out of data rather than ownership of my obligation. 

The refusal to answer the most basic questions regarding the status and ownership of the obligation also leaves me without access to anyone with actual legal authority to administer, collect or enforce my obligation. 

Notwithstanding the above, the self-proclaimed ( and I now know to be unauthorized ) servicer continues to act as though it has the authority to administer, collect and enforce -- - although they refuse to say for whom. I now doubt whether payments that were made by me were ever forwarded to anyone who had paid value for my obligation in exchange for a conveyance of ownership of my debt. In fact, based upon expert analysis and the failure to provide any response, I now believe that no such party exists and that no loan receivable account is currently maintained on the books and records of any company -- - because all the players have already been paid in full for their services or contribution and the investors who supplied capital continue to get paid by the investment banks regardless of whether or not I make payments to anyone. 

Without knowing the identity of the party, if one exists, who paid value in exchange for ownership of the debt, it is impossible to validate the status of the debt or its ownership and therefore impossible to validate the authority of any servicer or lawyer who is asserting or implying they represent such a party. 

Based upon current information the XXXX XXXX companies were the bookrunner investment bank that created, issued and sold certificates to presently unknown investors. Those certificates represented unsecured liability of XXXX XXXX doing business as an undisclosed and concealed trust name. 

The transaction was originated and presented as a loan. The advertised originator was XXXX. the actual existence of XXXX is in doubt -- - i.e., unresolved : On XX/XX/XXXX the followingannouncementwas made : XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) -- XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX 's {$12.00} XXXX hedge fund firm, agreed to buy bankrupt subprime mortgage lender XXXX XXXX XXXX on Tuesday, topping XXXX XXXX in an auction. 
XXXX is one of several subprime lenders to have collapsed in recent months. Subprime loans are offered to borrowers with spotty credit and lower incomes. The sector has descended into crisis as interest rates climbed from record lows and delinquencies increased.See full story. 
XXXX, which was a top 20 subprime mortgage lender, filed for bankruptcy in XXXX. In its filing, the firm said it planned to sell most of its assets to XXXX XXXX, +1.20 % for {$19.00} million.See full story. 

Despite having originated several XXXX XXXX dollars ( perhaps billions of dollars ) worth of loans it was only worth {$24.00} XXXX including goodwill, customer lists, and fees receivable -- - and nothing for loans receivable -- - which basically means that there was nothing paid for loans despite some announcements later that made it appear as though {$160.00} XXXX in loans had been purchased from XXXX. Its schedules in bankruptcy are devoid of any such claims of asset value associated with loans receivable because there were no loans receivable. There were only fees receivable. The conclusion in which we have extremely high confidence is that no loans were owned by XXXX ( nor MERS on its behalf -- - see below ). It therefore could not have and did convey any interest in loans it did not own. 

The only company in existence with a business reason to make any acquisition of XXXX assets or business was XXXX XXXX who had an interest in preserving the illusion of loan accounts even if they were not actually owned by XXXX or XXXX XXXX. By preserving the illusion of unpaid loan accounts, it was able to pursue enforcement and collection of debts that appeared to have been unpaid. 

AlthoughXXXX had some licenses, it was basicallyacting in two roles : ( 1 ) mortgage broker and ( 2 ) sham conduit for loan instruments ( mortgage and note ). It did in fact act as a mortgage brokerand it appears this was XXXX front for securities brokerage firms -- - XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in coordination with XXXX XXXX XXXX. They in turn were acting both as intermediaries and intervenors between the borrowers and the actual source of lending -- - investors ( Pension funds etc. ) who purchased certificates that were actually unsecured promises to pay scheduled payments backed not by mortgages and notes but by the good faith and credit of XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX. 

Hence the investors put up the money and while ordinarily they would have received interests in the loan documents and collateral, they received neither. Neither the certificates nor the holders of certificates issued in the name of the inchoate trust received or conveyed any interest in the subject debt, note or mortgage. Acting as a mortgage broker does not entitle such a company to appear as Payee on a promissory note nor mortgageeor beneficiaryon a mortgage or deed of trust. 

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ( MERS ) appears in the title chain as though it means something. At best MERS is the agent of XXXX. In other words, under the best-case scenario MERS was an agent for an agent with no known principal because none was disclosed. The highest probability is that XXXX had no official role as agent for anyone and therefore the MERS agency was merely to create the illusion of a facially valid paper trail which was not based upon any real transactions -- -- i.e., XXXX never loaned me money and MERS had no greater power to assign the mortgage rights than XXXX, as " principal '' did. 

The Notice of Appointment of Substitute or Successor Trustee is void as a matter of law. Such an instrument may only be authorized by a party who is in fact qualified as a beneficiary under the deed of trust. Under state law such a party must own the debt and be the party to whom the debt is owned and implicitly that means the party who has previously been paid and who will be paid upon liquidation of the property in the forced sale of the premises. In fact, XXXX XXXX has never received any payments and never will receive any payments in foreclosure or through any other means. It is a straw man acting as though it is trustee for a trust that does not in actuality exist or which is, in legal terminology, inchoate ( sleeping ). In plain language unless the sale will go to pay down the debt, the action is not really a foreclosure despite the labels being used. 

It follows both logically and legally that any action undertaken by XXXX XXXX XXXX as Successor trustee are void -- - this conclusion is unavoidable unless some sort of ratification occurred -- - somehow a party who paid value for the debt comes forward to make that assertion and warranty and who can prove it.. 

Note that the notice of appointment of successor trustee does NOT state it is executed on behalf of a trust. It is actually impossible to determine the actual party on whose behalf the instrument was executed -- - XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX, some implied trust? 

The assignment dated XX/XX/XXXX is a backdated, fabricated forged and robosigned instrument having no effect whatsoever. XXXX had long since gone out of business ( 6 years ) and MERS was merely an agent for XXXX. The signer was employed by neither XXXX nor MERS.  The signer is a known example of facsimile signatures used on robosigned documents -- - i.e., documents signed in the name of persons who have not even seen the document much less understood it or knew what was in it and notarized in like manner. The signer is believed to have been employed by Select Portfolio Servicing whose sole function was to pose as an authorized servicer without any real authority to do so. 

The same deficiencies exist for the XXXX appointment of successor trustee. It is a void, forged, backdated, robosigned document on behalf of entities who have no financial interest in the loan other than the expectation of revenue. The title of document control officer is a cover for the fact that the person does nothing other than sign documents put in front of them or permit the use of a stamped signature bearing a facsimile of their signature. Such persons have no personal knowledge of the contents, who prepared the documents, the authority for signing or anything else. 

The XXXX Limited Power of Attorney ( LPOA ) falls into the same category. The grantor, XXXX XXXX had no power to grant such a power of attorney over the subject loan because it was not authorized by the owners of the subject debt to administer the subject loan in any way and in fact never did so. While the grantee may have received some authority to act on behalf of XXXX XXXX, said authority was unrelated to administration of the subject loan. Further the LPOA is contrary to industry practice in banking or investment banking. Powers of attorney are not used in business transactions without specific agreements on the scope of duties, rights and obligations. Those would be included in a servicing agreement which has never been revealed or referenced by SPS.. 

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. ( SPS ) is a loan servicing company founded in XXXX as XXXX XXXX XXXX with operations in XXXX XXXX XXXX, Utah and XXXX, Florida. Filings with the Utah SOS and SEC would more accurately confirm that XXXX XXXX XXXX was created as a Utah company in XXXX. 

XXXX XXXX ( the parent company of XXXX XXXX ) was owned in part by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and bond XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. In XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX agreed to pay {$40.00} XXXX to settle with the FTC and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD ), [ 1 ] which charged them with engaging in a number of unfair, deceptive, and illegal practices in the servicing of subprime mortgage loans. The Commission distributed the {$40.00} XXXX as redress to affected consumers. The settlement also imposed a number of specific limitations on XXXX ability to charge fees and engage in certain practices when servicing mortgage loans. In early XXXX, XXXX changed its name to Select Portfolio Servicing , Inc. and SPS Holding Corp. 
XXXX changed its name to Select Portfolio Servicing effective XX/XX/XXXX according to its Articles of Amendment. 

In XXXX, Select Portfolio Servicing was purchased by XXXX XXXX, a financial services company, headquartered in XXXX, XXXX. According to a Securities and Exchange Commission report ( XXXX : XXXX ) filed XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ),  XXXX now known as XXXX XXXX, purchased Select Portfolio Servicing and its parent holding company for {$140.00} XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX [ 2 ] included " the acquisition of Select Portfolio Servicing, a mortgage servicing company. '' Even though the debt was retired contemporaneously with origination, the respondents referred to above have acted in concert to seek enforcement as though it was unpaid -- - and to limit their own exposure in third party contracts that were based on data arising from my transaction and others. 

It has taken me years to accumulate the data to arrive at the truth of this matter. You are the agency tasked with stopping illegal behavior and making sure that it doesnt happen again to me or anyone else. Because the scheme is very complex, they continue to escape detection and they avoid fines, penalties and injunction for their activities in turning foreclosure nightmares into their profits and fees. 

If anything in this complaint is wrong then it should be easy to establish that -- - not with a denial but with proof of the existence of a valid accounting entry on the books and records of some entity in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. They either paid value in exchange for a conveyance of ownership of the underlying obligation or they didnt. If they did, and they maintained the account as an asset receivable then I am wrong. If they didnt, they should be subject to every possible liability. 

Sincerely,

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