Consumer complaint received 2025-02-27 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Repossession — Lender trying to repossess or disable the vehicle
Company: TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION
State: TN

Complaint narrative:
XX/XX/year>, complaint # XXXX was closed out by XXXX XXXX XXXX after employees from Toyota financial responded to a complaint submitted. Will the investigators from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau direct counsel and/or employees for Toyota Motor Credit Corporation to answer the following question below : When employees from Toyota Motor Credit Corporation stated they have rights enforce repossession of property upon admitted to having no first hand knowledge that an agreement was executed in complaint # XXXX. Where's the an authenticated agreement which can not be separated from the alleged debt proving that employees from Toyota Motor Credit Corporation had lawful standing to search and seize property? 

Is the agreement carrying an alleged debt an asset ( value ) derive from the following factors : A blank endorsement on a promissory note grants an irrevocable power of attorney to the holder, allowing them to transfer, assign, or enforce the note at their discretion? However, would that make the true creditor the party who provides the value, which in this case is the one whose signature creates the credit? 
In XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, did the Supreme Court not held that " the note and mortgage are inseparable ; the assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it? '' Would this not mean that whoever holds the note controls the mortgage, and a restrictive endorsement prevents unauthorized securitization or transfer. Are employees at Toyota aware that In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, the Court ruled that a party claiming rights to a contract must prove it provided valuable consideration, meaning the bank must show it loaned real money, not just issued bookkeeping entry credit if they alleging that they loaned something? If the bank can not prove this, would that not make their claim is fraudulent and void under XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, which held that acts done without lawful authority are void ab initio? 

To prevent unauthorized conversion, shouldn't a restrictive endorsement be placed on the back of the note, stating : " Pay to the order of [ Your Name ], the lawful creditor, without recourse? Provide proof that the promissory note would be an asset and shall not be transferred, sold, assigned, securitized, or hypothecated by any party without my express written consent? Would any attempted negotiation contrary to this restriction is void XXXX XXXX and constitutes fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment? '' If the signature line is on the front, should a secondary restriction should be added above the signature, reinforcing that possession of the note does not confer ownership? In XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, are employees from Toyota Motor Credit Corporation aware, the Court upheld that restrictive endorsements must be enforced, making any unauthorized transfer legally ineffective? Likewise, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX United States held that a holder in due course must take an instrument in good faith, meaning a bank that accepts a note with a restrictive endorsement can not claim enforcement rights.? Would this not ensure that any unauthorized transfer is null and void, preventing banks from unlawfully converting the note into their asset?

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation