Consumer complaint received 2026-02-18 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Closing on a mortgage — Closing disclosure or other related disclosures
Company: Selene Holdings LLC
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
NOTICE OF UNCONSCIONABILITY Demand for Cure of Procedural and Evidentiary Defects Please accept the enclosed Notice of Unconscionability- Demand for Cure of Procedural and Evidentiary Defects for your immediate administrative and regulatory attention.

This notice is submitted to demand formal review and investigation of the lending practices, securitization, and foreclosure actions of Selene Finance LP, which appear to have been conducted without statutory authority and in violation of both federal banking regulations and constitutional limitations.

The facts presented challenge the enforceability of the underlying mortgage contract as void ab initio due to fraud in the factum, lack of authority, and statutory misapplication. The matter is urgent, as continuing collection or enforcement activities may result in irreparable harm to a private dwelling secured by unlawful means.

Please confirm receipt and the initiation of regulatory review in writing. Failure to respond or act upon this notice may subject involved parties to liability under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and related laws. 
Respectfully submitted, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, New York XXXX CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, XXXX XXXX, certify that on this XXXX day of XXXX, XXXX, I caused a true and correct copy of the enclosed Verified Notice to be served via mail and/or email upon the following parties : XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX & XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, New York XXXX XXXX of the Comptroller of the Currency XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Washington, DC XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 
Executed on this 5th day of XXXX, XXXX. 

XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Demand for Cure of Procedural and Evidentiary Defects FROM : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX New York TO XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Comptroller of the Currency Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX New York Federal Reserve XXXX XXXX XXXX Housing and Urban Development New York XXXX Department XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX New York XXXX Department XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX I. NOTICE TO REGULATORS AND PARTIES IN INTEREST NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL. NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT. 
COMES NOW XXXX XXXX, a private woman, to give formal verified notice of fraud in the factum, unconscionability, statutory violations, and lack of lawful authority surrounding the mortgage transaction and foreclosure proceedings initiated by Selene Finance LP and to demand immediate regulatory investigation and corrective relief. 
This Verified Notice is made pursuant to public duty and under penalty of perjury. All statutory references herein are to be interpreted according to the settled rules of construction, including expressio unius est exclusio alterius ( the expression of one is the exclusion of others ), ejusdem generis ( general terms following specific ones must relate to the same class ), and noscitur a sociis ( words are known by the company they keep ), and in pari materia ( statutes relating to the same subject must be read together in harmony ).

II. MATERIAL BASIS FOR CHALLENGE : UNCONSCIONABLE AGREEMENT 1. The alleged mortgage contract was not presented with full disclosure, comprehension, or valid mutual assent. This violates 15 U.S.C. 1602 and 24 C.F.R. 3500.8, which require accurate, timely, and complete disclosure of settlement costs and lending terms. No valid Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) disclosures, no itemized HUD-1 Settlement Statement, and no informed explanation of securitization, sale of note, or loss of equity interest were provided.

2. The terms of the agreement were substantively and procedurally unconscionableladen with one-sided penalties, overreaching enforcement clauses, and vague, shifting liability terms.

3. No meeting of the minds occurred. The alleged borrower did not knowingly agree to surrender full equitable interest in shelter for a commercial instrument whose performance demanded execution beyond natural means ( an impossibility ).

4. Courts have long recognized that equity will not enforce contracts so one-sided and oppressive that no fair-minded person would consent to them knowingly. See U.C.C. 2-302, and Restatement ( Second ) of Contracts 208.

III. NO LAWFUL LENDING AUTHORITY FOR PRIVATE SHELTER 5. Title 12 of the U.S. Code and its implementing regulations do not authorize national banks or their affiliates to finance private, non-commercial shelter through mortgage loans.

6. According to 12 C.F.R. Part 34, Appendix A, national banks must establish real estate lending policies based on the types of property they finance, including 14 family residential dwellings. The guidelines primarily emphasize income-producing or commercial properties ; they do not explicitly authorize lending for private, owner-occupied shelter. In such cases, the burden remains on the lender to demonstrate lawful statutory authority to issue, securitize, and enforce mortgage obligations involving non-commercial, private residential use.

7. 12 U.S.C. 371 and the National Bank Act, read in conjunction with the enumerated powers of national banks under 12 U.S.C. 24 ( Seventh ), do not empower banks to finance private shelter for non-commercial purposes. Banks are limited to specific, congressionally-authorized functions, and financing private residential shelter absent a commercial nexus exceeds their statutory authority. If the lender did so, it acted ultra viresbeyond its statutory powersand any funds issued would constitute a gift, not an enforceable debt through finance of private shelter for non-commercial purposes.

8. In National Bank v. Matthews, 98 U.S. 621 ( 1878 ), the Court held that mortgage instruments given by banks in violation of statutory authority are void and unenforceable. Under the canon of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the omission of private residential shelter from the enumerated classes of lawful real estate lending under federal statute and regulation supports the conclusion that such activity is beyond the banks authority.

9. As private shelter for personal use is not a commercial commodity, it is not eligible to be mortgaged by regulated banks absent commercial intent or lawful agency.

10. If the originating lender asserts that funds were given to acquire private shelter, then by their own admission, the instrument is either : ( a ) Void for statutory incapacity, or ( b ) A gift, which can not lawfully form the basis of foreclosure, penalty, or repossession.

IV. IMPROPER USE OF FEDERAL INSTRUMENTS 11. The alleged mortgage was securitized and sold without disclosure, consent, violating 12 U.S.C. 1715z-17, 1710, and other HUD/FHA lending provisions .

12. Federal banking regulations such as 12 C.F.R. 204 and 250.143 restrict mortgage-backed transactions to foreign investment structures, not local private shelter.

13. Per 12 C.F.R. 1026.2 ( a ) ( 24 ), a residential mortgage transaction requires the creation of a consensual security interest in a principal dwelling to finance acquisition. No such lawful interest was created here. Applying the canon of ejusdem generis, where the regulation lists specific forms of real estate lending involving commercial or investment purposes, the general term 'residential mortgage transaction ' must be interpreted within that commercial context. No enforceable contract can arise where no lawful offer, consideration, or capacity exists, particularly when the underlying collateral was never lawfully subject to securitization or lien. No such lawful interest was created.

14. Absent lawful lending authority, securitization, assignment, or collection are all fraudulent misrepresentations with potential civil and criminal consequences.

V. DEMAND FOR INVESTIGATION AND REMEDY 15. The undersigned calls for : Immediate investigation into all parties asserting foreclosure authority based on the referenced instrument ; Review of the lending practices and statutory powers of the originating lender ; Regulatory enforcement action under 12 U.S.C. 1818 ( unsafe or unsound banking practices ) and 1867 ( examination of affiliate servicers ) ; Initiation of constitutional review and accountability under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violations involving the unlawful deprivation of rights under color of law.

Immediate investigation into all parties asserting foreclosure authority based on the referenced instrument ; Review of the lending practices and statutory powers of the originating lender ; Regulatory enforcement action under 12 U.S.C. 1818, 1867, and 42 U.S.C. 1983 for constitutional violations.

16. Foreclosure based on a gift or void transaction is a constitutional violation of : The Takings Clause ( U.S. Const. Amend. V ) ; Due Process Clauses ( Amend. V and XIV ) ; Equal Protection under the law.

VI. DECLARATION AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS All rights are reserved. No waiver of natural liberty or private status is implied. This Verified Notice is provided in good faith and calls for lawful remedy. 
Respectfully and without waiver, Date : XX/XX/XXXX VERIFICATION I, XXXX XXXX, a man/woman, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Executed this 5th day of XX/XX/XXXX. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, New York

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation