Consumer complaint received 2025-04-27 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Auto debt
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Seized or attempted to seize your property
Company: Southern Auto Finance Co
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
I am responding back to the response from SAFCO Consumer Response Team on XX/XX/year>, regarding Exhibit A and Exhibit B that is claimed on the alleged contract stating, " Your retail installment contract was electronically signed ''. According to the E-Sign Act Compliance, it allows electronic records to be used in place of paper, BUT only if the consumer has explicitly consented and can access the electronic record. Obtaining affirmative consent from the borrower is a legal requirement for lenders when using e-signatures on loans documents, ensuring both the lender and the borrower are protected and in compliance with relevant laws. SAFCO Consumer Response Team has already lied in my previous complaint, stating that the retail installment contract was not altered but it was. However, I will get to that monetarily. Now, I never gave explicitly consent or proper authorization to SAFCO XXXX Receivables Trust XXXX and/or XXXX to use the electronic signature ( s ) ( e-signature ( s ) ) on this UCC NON-AUTHORITATIVE COPY. I never agreed to, and I am unaware of the use of it. This forged signature has been obtained against my knowledge with coercion and misrepresentation. If you and SAFCO claims I have given consent, please provide me the documentation of my consent, which is required by law and provide me the method by which it was obtained. 



Next, the retail installment contract has typed words on both sides of the document in the front, all throughout the contract which says, " TRUE AND ACCURATE COMPLETED COPY - UCC NON-AUTHORITATIVE COPY ''. This is the lie that I caught SAFCO Consumer Response Team in. All THEY do is lie, a composer liar. I HATE LIARS! If you will lie about something like this, what else are you lying and concealing from me?

Now, if this is the Original Unaltered Loan Agreement why does it states this?

An UCC Non-Authoritative implies a copy of the original contract that has been fully executed BUT is not the Original Authoritative Copy, meaning the non-authoritative copy is used for informational purposes, internal records ONLY or for the borrower to keep a copy of the agreement for his/her records. This contract is NOT the legally binding document that proves ownership or enforcement rights. This forgery loan document does not act as the single source of TRUTH for the original contract. This digital contract has been subjected to alteration pursuant to UCC Article 9. It addresses the concept of " control '' over electronic chattel paper. However, this digital loan document is not a legally recognized version. It is not the true and original version. Respectfully, who is the rightfully owner of the note because SAFCO isn't due to the securitization of the retail installment loan agreement, which also was not disclosed to me. I will talk about this next. Who owns and controls the rights to this debt or asset? For control to exist, a single, unaltered authoritative copy must be established, and we know this has not been established. Lenders do not meet the specific requirements to obtain the authoritative version. This is how I know that the original loan agreement has been altered and forged without my awareness. I clearly had no idea that SAFCO and the Dealership would stoop this low. This is a deceptive practice, and the loan agreement is deemed NULL AND VOID. SAFCO has lost all its rights of enforcement in this fraudulent security, and this too was not disclosed to me. 
What was the clear legal framework for this electronic transaction that involved this chattel paper? 
Where or who holds the record/records for the single authoritative copy? 
Was the note properly endorsed and delivered to the new transferee and who would that be? I am requesting documentation for this transfer when it pertains to my alleged account. 




In the context of auto financing, " the note follows the auto '', which means the promissory note ( financial agreement ) and the auto ( physical asset ) itself are connected. If the alleged lender ( SAFCO ) does not hold the note, they do not have the legal right to repossess the borrower property. The alleged lender ( SAFCO ) can not take the auto without following the legal process outlined in the original unaltered promissory note. SAFCO has stolen my property unlawfully and I want it back because they do not hold the note. This is similar to the Supreme Court XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). It was ruled that a mortgage and note are inseparable, and that assigning the note carries the mortgage with it. If these two has been separated, the agreement is null and void. The loan was " bifurcated '' right after the consumer transaction was completed, meaning the chain of title was broken. Since, this contract has been forged, I would like to set up a litigation in my current state I live in. 



Furthermore, the retail installment contract does not state, nor does it disclose that SAFCO will be securitized and sold for the same amount of the loan amount, convert it into a security ( e.g. bond ) then pool with other auto loans, placed in a trust and issue the note out to be sold to investors in exchanged for immediately cash, while the investors would receive future stream of payments from the customer/borrower. My signature did not agree this this deceptive practice. I had no knowledge that this was going on. Why was this concealed from me? The agreement doesn't say that SAFCO can do this. So, why was this done without me being aware of it? My wet-ink signature is what brought this contract to life, which is the actual cash value just to be traded on. I do not CONSENT to this fraudulent practice. According to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX are telling consumers what these lenders are doing with their retail installment contracts. It stated auto asset-backed securities ( auto ABS ) are structured finance securities that are collateralized by auto loans or leases, such as those to prime ( good credit standing ) and subprime ( poor credit standing ) borrowers. Loans or leases are bundled into pools and transferred to a special-purpose entity ( SPE ), which, in turn, transfers the pool to a ( bankruptcy remote ) trust. Payments on the underlying auto loans and leases are pooled in the trust, and the funds are used to pay note investors their respective principal and interest when due. Any leftover funds known as excess spread, or the net interest margin are paid to the equity holder ( usually the issuer, such as an auto finance company ). So, again SAFCO why was this concealed from me? Material information was kept from me on purpose so that SAFCO and its investors will be able to benefit off of me and they are damaging my credit report, badly. 

I request the full details of the nature of securitization transactions involving my account and the specific types of data being used and shared that pertains to me, XXXX. Georgia Fair Business Practices Act prohibits unfair or deceptive business practices, which includes misleading information about how a company uses or share customer data as well as the CFPB, FTC, federal and states laws as well as consumer laws.

It is said that SAFCO specializes in auto financing for various consumer groups, including first-time buyers, those looking to rebuild credit and those with difficult-to-verify incomes, according to KBRA. There is a possibility that some of those loans including mines are poor quality loans, which has been rated XXXX but are not really XXXX ratings, they appear to be of that but are not. Now, in the pooling and servicing agreement ( PSA, there includes an accelerated clause that states, if the loan is insured, the insurance company will pay the lender in the full amount of the loan amount if the borrower can not repay the loan after default and repossession. It also said that a default on the auto loan can triggered a claim and most insurance companies aim to process claims within 30 days. The insurance policy that the trustee and lender ( The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( SAFCO ) entered into with XXXX XXXX XXXX triggered a pay-off and the Trust received the full amount of the note. SAFCO will not admit to their wrong and unethical dealings but when a consumer defaults on an auto loan with SAFCO XXXX XXXX XXXX, SAFCO files a claim with XXXX XXXX XXXX, which is the insurer for SAFCO within a few days to a couple of weeks of the default. Is this accurate, SAFCO? 

CFPB can you assist me in obtaining a XXXX XXXX Report from SAFCO, please? The note has been paid off, when the credit default swap was triggered. They still will lie to the end. That interest rate of 23.92 % annually that was given to me by SAFCO, instead of them denying high-risk borrowers, SAFCO, a predatory lender charged me a very high interest rate, and they logically with intent thought this scheme out because they knew sooner or later, I will default on this deceptive and false misrepresentation, fraudulent forged loan. 



Finally, according to the XXXX XXXX XXXX, Negotiable instruments pledge as collateral security for loans, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Bank, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX defines " collateral Security '' as security for payment of money besides the original security. The etymology of Collateral Security indicates that it is something running along with, and as it were, parallel to, something else of a similar character. The note and the auto are inseparable. SAFCO. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX states that the Supreme Court held that a retail installment contract was not a negotiable instrument, and therefore the assignee ( the finance company ) was not a " holder in due course '', meaning they could not take the contract free of the buyer 's defenses. The Holder in Due Course is defined by the UCC and it states that if a note is held within a Trust, the lender would need to demonstrate that they acquired the note as holder in due course, meaning they took the note in good faith, for value ( money ) and without notice of any defenses or claims. It goes on to say, that the holder must not have had notice of any defenses or claims against the instrument, such as a claim that the note was obtained through fraud or that the maker ( borrower ) has a valid reason not to pay, which I do.

Insomuch, banker or lenders are not allowed to separate the note from the collateral notes and then sell it to two parties. The general rule in regard to the pledgee 's right to sell commercial paper pledge is stated 31 Cyc. 839, states that the pledgee, in the absence of specific agreement or authority, does not have a right to sell commercial paper held as collateral. The pledgee has no inherent right to do so. In order to allow the pledgee to sell the commercial paper, there must be an explicit agreement between the pledgee and the pledgor that grants the pledgee this right. If the pledgee sells the commercial paper without proper authorization, it is considered a conversion, for wrongfully taking possession of another 's property- XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. SAFCO has violated a duty to hold the collateral security and is therefore liable for conversion, theft, counterfeiting, stealing and swindling at the option of the pledgor, me. XXXX XXXX. XXXX ; XXXX XXXX. XXXX. The amount of damages to the pledgor for such a conversion, theft, swindling, counterfeiting and stealing would be able to recover for the actual value of the security and not merely the price SAFCO received, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX ) XXXX Mo. XXXX.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation