Consumer complaint received 2016-08-01 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure — 
Company: SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.
State: OH

Complaint narrative:
I have been the victim of a fraudulent foreclosure effort for the past 11 years. While I have managed to stop the sale to date, the alleged bank has now taken steps to sell my house after the Ohio Supreme Court refused to hear my last appeal. 

However, thanks to the efforts of the CFPB, it 's clear that help is finally here. 

In a recent " Administrative Proceeding '' involving File No. XXXX-CFPB - XXXX In the Matter of XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX, the CFPB issued a " Consent Order '' which prohibits specific activities in the collection of mortgage debt, specifically the use of 'deceptive affidavits '. In the Consent Order, the CFPB lists at least five activities that XXXX & XXXX are restrained and enjoined from using in future collection activities including : a. Submitting to a court any affidavit in which it knows or should know an affiant represents, expressly or by implication, having personal knowledge of the validity, truth, or accuracy of the character, amount, or legal status of any Debt where that is not the case ; XXXX submitting any affidavit it knows or should know contains an inaccurate statement, including but not limited to a statement that attached documentation relates to the specific Consumer being sued when that is not the case ; XXXX submitting any affidavit in which it knows or should know that the affiant misrepresents the XXXX 's review of any Original Account-Level Documentation or any other documentation that would support the Debt that is the subject of the Collection Suit ; XXXX submitting any affidavit in which the affiant represents, expressly or by implication, that the XXXX has personally reviewed the affidavit, when it knows or should know that is not the case ; In my case, the Affidavit originally submitted to support the " Plaintiff 's Motion For Summary Judgment '' contains the exact same violations that the CFPB ordered XXXX XXXX XXXX to stop using. Specifically, the XXXX in my case : 1. Contains multiple inaccurate statements including that my wife, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and I have a 'loan account ' with the Plaintiff when my the facts clearly show otherwise -- my wife was not a signer on the Note. In the " Administrative Proceeding ' cited above, the CFPB said that even one 'inaccurate ' statement was impermissible. 

2. As a result of the inaccurate statement involving XXXX XXXX XXXX, and failing to prove it in any other manner, the XXXX clearly did not have 'personal knowledge ' of the loan account, which creates a second inaccurate statement. 

3. The XXXX also failed to ever state that the Plaintiff owned the loan. In fact, since the copy of Note that was attached to an Amended Complaint was not endorsed at all, there is no way the XXXX could have known if and when the Note was actually sold to the Plaintiff. 

4. It 's also clear that the Affiant was not familiar with the 'Account-level documentation ' because had she been, she would have clearly seen that the Trustee could not have ever owned the loan in question since it was required to be sold to the Seller ( XXXX ), then to the Depositor, ( XXXX XXXX ) and then assigned to the Trustee per the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement which governs the Trust she claims the Plaintiff represents. 

But since the note was not assigned/transferred according to the XXXX, the Trustee had no power to do anything according to New York Trust Law, the law governing the operation of the XXXX. 

5. The XXXX makes yet another inaccurate statement when she states that the loan is 'in default ' because since she does not have 'personal knowledge ' of the loan account, and she does not know the 'Account-level Documentation ', she is not qualified to attest as to the payment status of the loan. 

Given the above, it 's clear that for justice to be applied equally, U.S. Bank must not be allowed to proceed with a foreclosure sale on my home.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation