Consumer complaint received 2024-11-23 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt was result of identity theft
Company: Codilis & Stawarski, P.C.
State: IL

Complaint narrative:
Complaint against alleged " Trustee '' XXXX XXXX  for XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) and debt collectors law Firm XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, demand for disclosures under TILA 15 USC 1641 ( f ) ( 2 ) to provide name of the owner of my alleged obligation who had standing to file foreclosure XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and demand to provide me wet-ink signed release of lien from the Creditor and return my original Promissory Note and Mortgage. 

On XX/XX/XXXX law Firm Codilis and Associates filed foreclosure action XXXX against me acting as " representatives '' of XXXX XXXX  as Trustee for XXXX XXXX claiming some " controversies '' On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX lawyers, acting under unknown to me authority impersonated as Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems MERS prepared forged Assignment of Mortgage to XXXX XXXX  as Trustee for XXXX  `` for {$10.00} consideration '' which was allegedly " acknowledged '' by undisclosed to me parties. This Assignment was recorded against my property on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX later dismissed this foreclosure case. On XX/XX/XXXX another law firm, XXXX XXXX XXXX and its lawyer XXXX XXXX filed another legal action as " representatives '' for DBNT as Trustee for XXXX XXXXXXXX and filed another forged Assignment of Mortgage to XXXX as Trustee for XXXX XXXX for {$10.00} which was also allegedly " acknowledged '' by unknown to me parties. 
XXXX successfully completed this foreclosure and eviction cases against me with forged and fraudulent documents in XXXX. 
On XX/XX/XXXX my property was sold. On XX/XX/XXXX - or XXXX weeks before this sale - Codilis lawyers prepared Special Warranty Deed acting as representatives of XXXX XXXX XXXX  who was allegedly acting as an attorney in fact for XXXX XXXX  where Codilis transferred possession of my property to XXXX He for {$10.00} - which is clearly not the adequate sale price for the condo unit in XXXX. 
When I submitted my XXXX XXXX and demand for disclosures under TILA to XXXX XXXX  and XXXX XXXX, both banks denied its involvement in this foreclosure and XXXX XXXX denied even knowledge about it. Both foreclosure cases were based solely on documents prepared by Codilis and statements made by lawyers from Codilis and XXXX. 
On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ] responded to my QWR, DVR and demand for TILA disclosures and told CFPB that their law Firm was hired by XXXX XXXX XXXX  and they used an Assignment of Mortgage prepared by XXXX in XXXX. 
I demand disclosure from XXXX XXXX  and XXXX who was the owner of the debt due from me, who paid {$10.00} in XXXX and {$10.00} in XXXX ; to whom these {$10.00} were paid ; provide me name and contact information of the authorized employee of the Creditor who authorized Codilis to prepare and file all these documents- including Warranty Deed to XXXX He. I demand disclosures who was entitled to receive {$10.00} and other valuable consideration from XXXX XXXX, that was the amount of " other valuable consideration '' and who actually received this valuable consideration. Since that information is not on the note, payable to someone else, XXXX XXXX  must come forward with an assertion that it owns an obligation due from me, that it has been receiving payments, and that it was no longer receiving payments causing an economic loss which was cured by forced sale of my home and explain why unrelated to me parties- XXXX lawyers prepared all documents acting as " XXXX XXXX  '' - including the Deed XXXX weeks before my property was allegedly " sold '' to XXXX He. Here is nothing in the case from XXXX XXXX  or any XXXX or employee of XXXX XXXX. Instead, every assertion and every document came from the mouth or pen of XXXX lawyer. The implied client of these lawyers is XXXX XXXX, but the lawyer never says that XXXX XXXX  is his client because he has never had any contact with XXXX XXXX. I demand to show me the show me the ledger where the unpaid account receivable was kept on the books of XXXX XXXX  and was satisfied after the sale of my property. If they cant do that, the unpaid loan account is not on the books of XXXX XXXX. At that point, the authority of the lawyers or implied servicer vanishes along with all claims to administer, collect or enforce any payment that is stated to be due from me but not due to the named claimant who never appeared and never presented any documents in this case. Without actual ledger owned by XXXX XXXX  which must be presented to me - I can not validate, confirm or corroborate the alleged debt without hearing from a party in interest who has paid for the alleged obligation, note or lien. There is no assertion by XXXX XXXX  that it warrants title to a debt, note or lien. There is not even an assertion or information that an unpaid loan account exists anywhere in the ledgers of XXXX XXXX  nor that an obligation owed by me is due to XXXX XXXX. In fact, there is no assertion that XXXX XXXX  has ever received any payment from me nor that it intended to assert a claim for payment. 

In the absence of any assertion of ownership and authority, I demands that XXXX XXXX  's authorized employee persoanlly admits and confirms its alleged claim to administer, collect or enforce any payment from me and that the CFPB take administrative action to force XXXX XXXX  to respond and produce these documents and individuals because XXXX XXXX  ' and its alleged lawyers repetitive refusals to answer any simple questions who owned the debt is a serious violation of statutes and a breach of the charter for the agency ( CFPB and FTC ). 

Only an authorized officers or employees must answer this request and that the person be identified by name and contact information. Delegation of duties is at least partially illegal for a party named as trustee. I am entitled and want to know whether XXXX XXXX  ever and any right, title or interest in the payments scheduled to be paid by me. If not, it doesnt matter what they delegated. 

If XXXX XXXX is merely allowing third parties to use its name while it performs no functions in connection with the accounting, processing or management of payments allegedly due from me, then it is neither acting as a Bank nor as trustee, and the CFPB should make a referral to the appropriate banking regulators for discipline related to their banking charter and licenses to do business.

Company response to consumer: Untimely response