Consumer complaint received 2023-06-05 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — VA mortgage
Issue: Closing on a mortgage — 
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
On XXXX XXXX we received a XXXX XXXXXXXX package from one of the four XXXX  firms used in our continue battle over our property rights and concerns.Yes we have written CFPB over the last XXXX years about the concerns of fraudulent activity since the inception of our XXXX XXXXXXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX have had XXXX Mortgage Audit which declares that our loan finalization did not present TILA in the beginning of the final documents of closing.Bank of America still claims that BOFA XXXX XXXX AND XXXX still have the assignment to the property of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXYet in the XXXX XXXX XXXX Court XXXX XXXX has been transferred back to XXXX Mortgage XXXX of XXXX time that we request the information that should be available we are sent to XXXX of the XXXX law firms and there is no founded process of the written request offered. 
There is a great deal of confusion added to the chaos that is inherent in the illusion of securitization. It comes from the fact that most people, including regulators, lawyers and judges, fail to appreciate the difference between the servicer and the creditor. Indeed, the pretender lenders are counting on this confusion when they go to court and it is working, XXXX less and less as XXXX start looking behind the veil of attorney representation and false affidavits that leave the court record bereft of any actual evidence. It might be that the servicing rights have been transferred and not the loan. 
But remember that the servicing rights arise from the securitization documents and if those were not followed, thus subjecting the loan to servicing as per the pooling and servicing agreement, the administration of the account by the servicer could be alleged as ultra vires. And remember that just because something is transferred doesnt make it any more valid than it was before the transfer. So if the original obligation, note, mortgage deed or other closing documents were not in compliance with law, and factually were at variance with how the loan was actually funded and by whom, then the transfer doesnt make those defects disappear. The pretenders have been largely successful at convincing the courts otherwise, but each day more judges are realizing that the fact that a loan was transferred doesnt mean that the loan even existed or that the lien XXXX perfected.In any event, it would seem that if we receive such a letter, we should be able to ask to see the documents evidencing the transfer. First we are entitled by law to this information, according to XXXX XXXX XXXX Second whatever they send us they are committing themselves in writing to a specific set of facts that they can no longer change in the shell game they are playing in the courts. At this point it makes sense to inquiring about who signed what and to demand the entire chain. The possession of a XXXX title and securitization report and analysis will go nicely with this effort. A retort expressing the desire to rescind and/or a qualified written request will set the stage for starting off any proceeding with our truthful allegation that first, before they do anything else, they must comply with the requirements of law and respond to our request.

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