Consumer complaint received 2024-12-27 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Mortgage debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt was already discharged in bankruptcy and is no longer owed
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: AK

Complaint narrative:
Bank Of America is suing me in federal court for the seventh time since XXXX while they have no standing on charged-of XXXX time-barred debt they sold in XXXX to XXXX XXXX and they are only debt collectors with no Foreclosure remedy for debt collectors, even if there was unsecured that does not include them taking my home : 1. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction : - The claims brought by Bank of America are fundamentally matters of state law. Absent a federal question, the federal court lacks jurisdiction over this matter. 
- Supporting Case Law : In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), the Supreme Court ruled that federal court jurisdiction is limited in diversity cases where the essential elements of the claim arise solely from state law. 

XXXX. Pending Appeal : - The order lifting the automatic stay issued by the Bankruptcy XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, is currently under appeal in the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. This order is not final, and therefore, no judicial foreclosure actions should be initiated during the pendency of this appeal. 
- Supporting Case Law : The importance of maintaining the status quo while an appeal is pending is highlighted in In re XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), emphasizing that actions affecting the subject of an appeal should be stayed. 

XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : - There is an ongoing wrongful foreclosure action in state court involving the same property and the same parties, initiated by me in XX/XX/XXXX. Given this ongoing state litigation, the federal district court should refrain from hearing this case due to the principles of comity and judicial efficiency. 
- Supporting Case Law : The abstention doctrine was articulated in Colorado XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. v. United States, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), where the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of avoiding duplicative litigation when concurrent state and federal actions exist. 

4. Lack of Meeting of the Minds : - The documents related to the deed of trust contain only the homeowner 's signature, and there is insufficient documentation to demonstrate that there was a true meeting of the minds to enforce this agreement. Without evidence of mutual agreement and essential terms, the court can not validate the claim to enforce the deed. 
- Supporting Case Law : In XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Alaska XXXX ), the court highlighted that a valid contract requires a meeting of the minds and that mere signatures without evidence of intent to enter into a binding agreement do not suffice. 

XXXX. Time-Barred Claims : - The claims made against me are time-barred, as previously determined by this XXXX. Bank XXXX XXXX attempts to pursue foreclosure are time-barred as of XX/XX/XXXX. 
- Supporting Case Law : As established in XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), a court should dismiss claims that are filed after the expiration of the statute of limitations. 

XXXX. Discharge from Bankruptcy : - I received a standard discharge in my bankruptcy case on XX/XX/XXXX, which included the mortgage debt related to my property. This discharge eliminates any personal liability for that debt, further solidifying that Bank of America lacks standing to pursue foreclosure claims against me. 
- Supporting XXXX XXXX : In In re XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXX. XXXX. XXXX XXXX ), the court determined that a discharge in bankruptcy precludes creditors from pursuing claims relating to XXXX debts. 

XXXX. Repetitive Nature of Foreclosure Attempts : - Bank of America has previously attempted foreclosure on this property XXXX times and has voluntarily dismissed those actions. They should not be permitted another attempt without just cause. 
- Supporting Case Law : In XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court ruled that a lender can not repeatedly litigate claims that have already been decided against them. 

XXXX. Lack of Standing by Bank of America : - Bank of America lacks standing to pursue foreclosure actions because they sold the mortgage note to XXXX XXXX Without ownership of the note, they can not demonstrate specific injury to pursue this claim. 
- Supporting Case Law : In XXXX XXXX Bank of America, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court ruled that a lender must demonstrate ownership of the mortgage note to establish standing. 

XXXX. Lack of Standing by XXXX XXXX : - XXXX XXXX has failed to provide any evidence of authorization from Bank of America to represent them in this case. This raises significant questions regarding their standing and legitimacy in pursuing foreclosure actions. 
- Supporting Case Law : In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX XXXX ), it was established that parties must prove authority to act on behalf of another party to assert standing. 

XXXX. Fabricated Claims : - The amount claimed by XXXX XXXX as owed to Bank of America is entirely fabricated and unsupported by legitimate documentation. 
- Supporting Case Law : In In re XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX ), the court indicated that claims must be backed by credible evidence ; failure to provide such evidence warrants dismissal. 

XXXX. Invalid Notarization : - The deed of trust is invalid due to a lack of proper notarization. The notary attestation block is missing essential verification language indicating that the signers appeared before the notary. 
- Supporting Case Law : In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX XXXX ), the court held that a deed lacking valid notarization does not confer enforceable rights. 

XXXX. Identity Theft Concerns : - There are serious concerns regarding potential identity theft, as XXXX XXXX and Bank of America may have monetized the mortgage note repeatedly through deceptive methods.

- Supporting Case Law : The issues regarding misrepresentation of signatures as a basis for dispute were noted in In re XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX ).

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