Consumer complaint received 2018-03-10 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Seized or attempted to seize your property
Company: Ocwen Financial Corporation
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I submitted this complaint for a wrongful eviction of a renter from a foreclosed house, first in XX/XX/XXXX.  XXXX XXXX responded " It's not us it's OCWEN ''. Our deposition showed differently. On XX/XX/XXXX I  submitted a new complaint. You don't have a box for illegal renter evictions ( but you should. ) It looks like XXXX XXXX routed it to XXXX XXXX XXXX, who XXXX XXXX responded I did not have " standing '' to bring the complaint. Well ... their name was on the caption of the illegal eviction proceeding, and so was mine. So, I most certainly do have standing. 

They also gave the complaint to their attorneys to answer - XXXX XXXX XXXX, who are the ones who tried for 4 years to illegally evict me-then dismissed their case when I caught them with fake documents essentially stealing the loan and house. I suggested the attorney investigating my complaint needs to go back to law school to learn about standing. " XXXX XXXX v XXXX '' most certainly does give me standing, and I am living in a house with their name on ( half ) the title. 

It is XXXX XXXX 's name on the eviction cases. They were directed at me. So yes, I do have standing to bring this complaint. Under XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX   XXXX, v. XXXX XXXX XXXX et al. ( App Div No. XXXX, Super. Ct. No. XXXX ) & XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, v. XXXX XXXX et al. ( App Div No. XXXX ) the renter prevailed in the bank having to prove they followed the foreclosure law. So there certainly is standing for a renter to question a Bank 's illegal foreclosure. 

Meanwhile the issue here is you and your agents tried to ILLEGALLY EVICT MY FAMILY, in violation of both Federal and CA State PTFA law and I most certainly do have the standing and the right to file a complaint and receive an adequate response that is not a shell game on this issue. 


Here it is, again. 

Property : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, CA XXXX In XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX via their agent OCWEN sued me for eviction in my rental. This was the first I realized they had ( it turns out illegally ) foreclosed on my rental, with a 5 year lease. 
Under both Federal PTFA Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act and CA State PTFA, XXXX XXXX has to honor my lease, which is in effect until XX/XX/XXXX. My lease includes a long list of repairs the ( now former ) owner agreed to do, since the property is seriously dangerous and dilapidated. I replied to the first eviction with my lease, and they withdrew their first eviction. 
I subsequently hired a Geologist, after being informed of a mudslide at the property which caused the property to be evacuated. He wrote a long report that the property is a " Danger to life and limb '' and needed immediate repair & geological stabilization. He also discovered XXXX XXXX only has title to the front half of the house. This report was provided to XXXX XXXX via their attorney, who responded by trying to evict us, again. So I defended our right to be here & have the property repaired. 
Knowing the home is extremely dangerous, XXXX XXXX has refused to make any repairs, forcing me to make repairs to make the home even half way livable. Thus far I have spent hundreds of thousands in repairs. During discovery on their lawsuit, I found forged loan assignments including XXXX XXXX, which made it impossible that XXXX XXXX owns this house. When presented with this evidence during our deposition in Spring XX/XX/XXXX, with requests to prove they own the house -- XXXX XXXX withdrew the case. XXXX XXXX 's only defense to my valid lease was we had strike throughs in it. This is not a legal claim. Thus far I have spent almost a hundred thousand dollars in attorneys fees defending their bogus eviction, for a home it appears they actually stole using fake loan assignments. 
XXXX XXXX presented their " Person most knowledgeable '' for the case as from OCWEN. When I made this same complaint in XX/XX/XXXX for failing to honor PTFA law, XXXX XXXX responded it was " not them it is OCWEN ''. The problem is, during the deposition OCWEN testified multiple times they are acting on behalf of XXXX XXXX. I have the entire deposition transcript. Further -- OCWEN is not the beneficiary so they can not legally evict me, only XXXX XXXX can. It is clear XXXX XXXX and OCWEN are playing a shell game -- but it is XXXX XXXX 's name on their ( now dismissed ) eviction lawsuit against me. 
Meanwhile -- I learned during our deposition that XXXX XXXX does not even have a process to handle renters, which are 60 % of the foreclosures. Their XXXX testified that is the " Foreclosure Trustee 's job ''. Are you kidding me? That is not their job, they just sell the house!! It is squarely XXXX XXXX 's job to know who is in the house, if they are a renter, and to honor their lease. This also means doing needed repairs -- not being a slumlord and expecting a renter to make extensive or any repairs!! This also means that in 60 % of the foreclosures, XXXX XXXX is just thumbing their nose at the law. 

-- /

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation