Consumer complaint received 2021-05-12 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Mortgage debt
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: Budget Mortgage Corp.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
XXXX XXXX, ( XXXX ) is the owner of the real property commonly known as XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, California XXXX ( hereinafter, the Subject Property '' ). ( See Ex. 1, Grant Deed. ) Conversely, XXXX XXXX XXXX, ( XXXX ) has no recorded ownership interests in the Subject Property. 
In XXXX, XXXX and XXXX applied for a loan against the Subject Property with Budget Finance Company, ( BFC ). ( Ex. 2, First Amended Complaint, ( FAC  ), 24. ) BCC employees did not require XXXX to be part of the loan, and crossed his name off on loan documents. ( Ex. 3, Crossed-out loan application documents. ) Completing the purported loan process, XXXX signed a Promissory Note, ( Note ), and Deed of Trust, ( DOT ). ( Ex.s 4 and 5. ) The Note and DOT are dated XX/XX/XXXX, but the notary stamp date on the DOT is XX/XX/XXXX 5 days later. ( Ex. 4, DOT. ) Interest appears to have been run from the date of the document, rather than the date of the actual signing and funding of the loan, allowing pre-consummation interest ; i.e., interest before the deal something inherently illegal. ( FAC  27 ; Ex.s 4 and 5. ) XXXX does not remember signing the Promissory Note, his signature is not on the DOT, and between the loan date, and the time XXXX officially disputed the debt, all mortgage statements and other documentation relating to the Subject Property and this purported Mortgage loan were issued in the name of XXXX only. ( FAC 28, Ex. 6, Statement to XXXX only. ) After XXXX officially disputed the debt in XXXX, Budget Mortgage Corp. ( BMC ) hired XXXX XXXX, ( XXXX ), who provided a copy of the Note with XXXX signature on it, ( Ex. 4 ), and since that time, both XXXX and XXXX were addressed as borrowers, rather than only XXXX. ( FAC 29 ; Ex.s 7a and 7b Letters to both XXXX and XXXX. ) Moving back to the origination, the loan amount was for {$190000.00}, and the HUD 1 form shows over {XXXX} in settlement charges, including {XXXX} to the XXXX XXXX XXXX, a {XXXX} Mortgage Broker Fee, and a {XXXX} origination fee. ( Ex. 8, HUD 1. ) XXXX was charged a 10.1 % interest rate, able to adjust all the way to 16.1 %. ( FAC 30 ; Ex. 4, Note. ) The initial payments were {XXXX} per month, but there was no amortization table provided with the loan documents, so XXXX did not know how the payments were applied to principle and interest. ( FAC 31. ) XXXX believed insurance and tax payments were included in her payments. However, without notice to XXXX, Fire Insurance was paid for by Budget on XX/XX/XXXX just 4 months after the loan began. ( FAC 32 ; Ex. 9, Ledger. ) At this time, fire insurance existed. ( Ex. 10, Proof of Insurance. ) Those fire insurance payments kept a running negative balance that advances were made upon, despite {XXXX} of XXXX payments being applied to the claimed {XXXX} amount, and which XXXX was thereafter charged triple for. ( FAC 33 ; Ex. 9. ) XXXX and XXXX feel that triple-charging for fire insurance is unconscionable. ( FAC 34. ) Later, when XXXX spoke to XXXX XXXX, ( XXXX ), ( a Senior Mortgage Specialist for BMC ), XXXX expressly represented to XXXX that they, ( BMC ), can charge triple for the taxes and insurance payments. ( FAC 35. ) At this time, BFC had already assigned the loan to Budget Capital Corporation, ( BCC ), ( Ex. 11 First Assignment. ) Since that time, BCC assigned the same to Budget Funding I, LLC, ( BFI. ) ( Ex 12 Second Asdignment. ) In XXXX, BMC told XXXX the taxes on the property were delinquent, that there was no impounds for taxes, and she was responsible for paying them. ( FAC 39. ) Upon this notice, XXXX immediately contacted the tax collector and reinstated the taxes by paying the current taxes due and setting up a payment plan on the past due amount. XXXX then notified BMC of the payment plan she arranged with the Taxing Authority, and BMC was were satisfied. ( FAC 40. ) Subsequently, BMC contacted XXXX regarding a loan modification, but since BMC would simply be keeping all the funds advanced for the modification, XXXX declined. ( FAC 41-48. ) At that point, BMC paid the outstanding tax debt without consulting XXXX, and in this manner, purportedly put the mortgage loan account in the arrears for the tax payment amount. ( FAC 49-51. ) The numbers to this point, as evidenced in the accounting documents provided to XXXX and XXXX by XXXX underscore the absurdity occurring here : a. XXXX made a total of {XXXX} in payments over eleven ( 11 ) years, ( XXXX of XXXX to XXXX of XXXX ), ranging from {XXXX} to about {XXXX} per month ; b. {XXXX} was applied to the outstanding principle balance ; c. {XXXX} was applied as interest ; d. {XXXX} was applied, officially calculated with the monthly payment to Fire Insurance, other Insurance, or property taxes.

( FAC 53-54 ; Ex. 9, Ledger. ) BCC and others repeatedly misapplied XXXX monthly mortgage payments. Further, they failed to pay taxes and insurance from XXXX payments, but applied roughly 4.8 % of XXXX monthly payments to principal, about 95.1 percent to interest, and 0 % to taxes and insurance just so the taxes and insurance amounts could be advanced later, and they could triple bill XXXX for them. In this manner, BCC, BMC, BFC, BFI, the principles of those entities, ( XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX ), and others, made and are making a profit off the taxes and insurance payments due. ( FAC 54-55. ) Per the accounting records provided by XXXX, dated XX/XX/XXXX, ( Ex. 9 ), the loan amount in XXXX of XXXX was {$190000.00}, and the principle balance after 12 years of payments totaling over XXXX}, in XXXX of XXXX, was still {XXXX}, with payments, late charges and advances of XXXX}, totaling {XXXX}. ( FAC 56. ) The Budget Companies filed an official Notice of Default, ( Ex. 13, Notice of Defalt ), and after XXXX and XXXX filed their lawsuit, the Notice of Default was officially, and unilaterally rescinded. ( Ex. 14, Recission of Notice of Default. ) In addition to all of this, one or more persons working for BFC, ( the original lender ), forged XXXX name onto the Note. ( FAC at 105 ). Employees for BFC or BMC forged XXXX name on the Note to wrongfully make XXXX liable for the debt associated with the Note, while knowing XXXX had no actual liability regarding the Note. ( FAC at 106. ) Secondarily, during litigation, a document titled, Escrow Account Waiver '' was filed by XXXX, purporting to contain both of XXXX and XXXX signatures. Neither XXXX nor XXXX remembers signing this document, and a close-up of XXXX and XXXX signatures calls its authenticity immediately into question. ( Ex. 15, forged Escrow Account Waiver. ) The close-up views show anomalies requiring the original. 
XXXX and XXXX sudden appearance of this document at a crucially convenient time for BMC, BFC, BCC, BFI, related individuals. Additionally, the fact XXXX previously disclosed several hundred pages of documents, ( which appeared to be a full and complete copy of all documents related to the application and closing of the loan ), yet this Escrow Account Waiver was not included, further raised questions of the documents authenticity. ( Available upon request, as this is several hundred pages. ) XXXX XXXX XXXX of the law firm XXXX was the orchestrating attorney on all previous disclosures, and the orchestrating attorney on the submission of, and request for judicial notice of, the forged Escrow Account Waiver. This forged Escrow Account Waiver contains numerous document signature anomalies relating to both XXXX and XXXX purported signatures, and both XXXX and XXXX do not remember signing this document. ( Ex. 15. ) XXXX and XXXX finally obtained the resources to pay a handwriting expert, ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, to analyze XXXX purported signature on the Escrow Account Waiver. That expert stated XXXX signature was a forgery. ( Ex. 16, Declaration of XXXX XXXX. ) XXXX never signed that Escrow Account Waiver, the document is a forgery, but this same document was previously the key, linchpin piece of BUCHALTERS Motion to Dismiss, wherein the Budget Entities and Individuals almost completely succeeded. ( Ex. 17, Order on Motion to Dismiss. ) 1. 2. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS. 

XXXX and XXXX contend that the loan was improperly serviced, including that there should have been an escrow impound account for taxes and insurance, and that an amortization table should have been provided at the closing of the loan in XXXX. 
XXXX and XXXX also contend the loan illegally generated pre-consummation interest, and BCC wrongfully paid the entire ax debt, which XXXX XXXX already under an agreed-to payment program for, simply to put the loan further into debt and charge XXXX and XXXX even more. 
XXXX and XXXX further contend that certain of the Budget Entities and persons violated state and federal debt collection statutes and that the Budget Entities and Individuals law firm, ( XXXX ), conspired with its clients to create and submit to the Federal Court, the forged Escrow Account Waiver. 
XXXX contends his signature was forged onto the Promissory Note and onto the Escrow Account Waiver document which the Federal Court was requested to take judicial notice of. 
XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX sued the Budget Finance Company, ( BFC ), to address the fraud, forgery, misapplication of payments, requiring payment and issues with a recorded Notice of Default, which have since rescinded. 
That lawsuit is still pending in the United States District Court, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Case No. XXXX. 
However, due to the forged document submitted to the Federal Court, and the extreme likelihood that the expert will also determine XXXX signature on the Note is a forgery, this Complaint is now being made to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 
These financial entities have engaged in fraud, forgery, and a host of violations of State and Federal law. Now it appears their attorney, XXXX XXXX XXXX, is further involved in the creation of, and submission of the Forged Escrow Account waiver. 
Please help us. 

Respectfully, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

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