Consumer complaint received 2026-05-04 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — Foreclosure
Company: Ocwen Financial Corporation
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
Before addressing the six new findings from PHH 's own production XXXX reminds the CFPB of the foundational fact that destroys every claim any of the three responsible parties can make. The legitimate mortgage chain on XXXX 's property at XXXX Deer XXXX XXXX XXXX Florida XXXX ended at XXXX XXXX Mortgage in XX/XX/XXXX. Instrument XXXX recorded in XXXX XXXX Florida confirms XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX FHA mortgage FHA Case XXXX MERS MIN XXXX deactivated XX/XX/XXXX balance XXXX. XXXX 's credit reports confirm XXXX XXXX Mortgage as the last legitimate lender Open XX/XX/XXXX Closed XX/XX/XXXX Balance ZERO.This complaint is distinct from all prior complaints and is not a duplicate. This complaint presents six new critical findings that emerged exclusively from documents PHH Mortgage Corporation produced from their own Litton Loan Servicing LP files in response to XXXX 's CFPB complaints. These XXXX findings have never appeared in any prior complaint. PHH produced these documents apparently assuming XXXX did not already possess them. XXXX had every document PHH produced. PHH independently verified and confirmed from XXXX 's own files every element of the fraud XXXX has been documenting for 20 years. NEW FINDING XXXX THE XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 'S SWORN ADMISSION OF FRAUD ON THE COURT : PHH produced as Exhibit A to their court filing the Affidavit as to Ownership of Note and Mortgage signed under oath by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX of Litton Loan Servicing XXXX in XXXX XXXX Texas notarized by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Texas XXXX expires XX/XX/XXXX. This affidavit was filed in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX on or about XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX XXXX stated under oath paragraph XXXX that said XXXX merged into Accredited Lenders prior to the date of the assignments execution at which time Accredited Lenders obtained all the assets of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX stated under oath paragraph XXXX that the Assignment of Mortgage listed XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as the assignor due to the fact that the Mortgage listed said party as the original lender even though XXXX XXXX owned and held all assets of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. These XXXX sworn statements constitute a confession by XXXX 's own XXXX XXXX XXXX that they knowingly used a dead corporation 's name on the void assignment not because XXXX had legal authority to sign but because it was convenient. XXXX was dead. XXXX owned all XXXX assets including XXXX 's Note and Mortgage. XXXX knew this. XXXX used dead XXXX anyway. Under oath. In a Florida court. PHH is XXXX 's successor. PHH produced this confession from their own files. NEW FINDING TWO BUTLER AND HOSCH COURT ADMISSION : PHH produced the Plaintiff 's Reply to Defendant 's Affirmative Defenses filed by XXXX and XXXX attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX Florida Bar No. XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX XXXX & XXXX XXXX XXXX. This document contains the foreclosing plaintiff 's own attorney admitting in open court while XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX did merge into Accredited Lenders Accredited Lenders obtained ownership in the Note and Mortgage as well as all other assets of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX when they merged. The foreclosing plaintiff 's own attorney confirmed in open court that XXXX 's affirmative defense was factually correct. XXXX was dead. XXXX owned XXXX 's Note and Mortgage. The assignment should have been signed by XXXX not dead XXXX. XXXX and XXXX then argued they used dead XXXX because it was the original lender listed on the mortgage not because XXXX had legal authority. That is not a legal justification. That is an admission of fraud on the court. XXXX & XXXX File XXXX the same file number appears on the void assignment the XXXX XXXX affidavit and this court pleading connecting every fraudulent document to the same XXXX and XXXX XXXX hub operation connected to XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX 's federal conviction in Case XXXX. This same court pleading also contains a false statement XXXX and XXXX stated the assignment was executed on or about XX/XX/XXXX the correct year is XXXX a false statement in a court pleading. XXXX and XXXX also argued dead XXXX still owned XXXX 's second mortgage as of XX/XX/XXXX nearly XXXX years after XXXX dissolved a legally impossible claim made to a Florida circuit court judge. NEW FINDING XXXX XXXX BANK WITHDRAWAL MISREPRESENTATION : PHH produced as Exhibit B to their court filing the Florida Department XXXX XXXX XXXX for XXXX XXXX XXXX for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX filed XX/XX/XXXX stamped received XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX AM stamped filed XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX AM filed by CT XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank XXXX XXXX signed by XXXX XXXX as XXXX XXXX processed by Florida Division of Corporations XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX and XXXX submitted this document to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX arguing a quick review of the Florida Department XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX clearly states that XXXX Bank was in existence in the state of Florida as late as XXXX of XXXX. That argument is a deliberate misrepresentation of what the document says. This document does not prove XXXX was in existence in XX/XX/XXXX. It proves XXXX was withdrawing from Florida in XX/XX/XXXX. A company filing for withdrawal is not a company in existence. It is a company formally ending its legal presence in the state. The Florida XXXX XXXX XXXX processed that withdrawal on XX/XX/XXXX XXXX months before the void judgment was entered XX/XX/XXXX. More critically CT XXXX XXXX filed this withdrawal application on behalf of Bank XXXX XXXX who had absorbed XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. Bank XXXX XXXX directed XXXX 's Florida withdrawal in XX/XX/XXXX. Bank XXXX XXXX simultaneously continued the foreclosure in XXXX 's name. Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was being withdrawn from Florida. Bank XXXX XXXX knew the foreclosure was proceeding in the name of a bank being simultaneously withdrawn. Bank XXXX XXXX chose to continue rather than substitute itself as the proper plaintiff. That choice directing a bank 's withdrawal while simultaneously continuing to foreclose in that bank 's name is the clearest possible evidence of Bank XXXX XXXX 's knowing participation in the void judgment. NEW FINDING XXXX DEBT COLLECTOR DISCLOSURE ON FEDERALLY XXXX DEBT : PHH 's XX/XX/XXXX letter to XXXX contains a footer disclosure stating this communication is from a debt collector attempting to collect a debt any information obtained will be used for that purpose. PHH identified themselves as a debt collector in correspondence related to XXXX 's property at XXXX Deer XXXX XXXX XXXX Florida XXXX. Both Bank XXXX XXXX and Litton Loan Servicing XXXX PHH 's predecessor were XXXX as unsecured creditors in Federal Bankruptcy Court Case No. XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. The discharge permanently extinguished any debt obligation XXXX had to these parties. PHH identifying themselves as a debt collector attempting to collect a debt in XX/XX/XXXX on a property whose associated debt was XXXX in federal bankruptcy court in XXXX is a potential violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which prohibits debt XXXX from attempting to collect XXXX debts. It is also an additional violation of the permanent discharge injunction under XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. NEW FINDING XXXX FABRICATED LOAN NUMBER CONFIRMED NOWHERE IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENTATION : PHH produced from XXXX 's own loan files the complete original closing package for XXXX 's XXXX mortgage including the Adjustable Rate Note the Adjustable Rate Rider and both recorded mortgages. Every original document uses XXXX 's legitimate XXXX account number APPL XXXX for the first mortgage Account XXXX for the second mortgage. Fabricated XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which appears on both the void assignment and Special Warranty Deed Instrument XXXX appears on none of the original loan documents PHH produced from their own files. PHH independently confirmed from XXXX 's own files that fabricated number XXXX has no connection to XXXX 's original loan documentation. The legitimate account numbers are confirmed by XXXX independent sources simultaneously the IRS Form XXXX federal tax records the Adjustable Rate Note the Adjustable Rate Rider and both recorded mortgages. All XXXX use the legitimate number. None show the fabricated number. PHH 's own production proves their predecessor created a loan number with no connection to any original XXXX loan documentation. NEW FINDING XXXX XXXX PHYSICAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT LETTERS WHILE CLAIMING NO CONNECTION : On XX/XX/XXXX PHH returned XXXX active CFPB complaints stating the complaints do not belong to them. Yet between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX before and during the same period PHH mailed XXXX XXXX physical letters acknowledging XXXX complaints assigning XXXX internal case numbers XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and committing to written responses by XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. All XXXX letters were signed by XXXX XXXX XXXX Account XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Ombudsman the same analyst who signed PHH 's XX/XX/XXXX response with XXXX documented factual errors. PHH can not simultaneously tell the CFPB the complaints do not belong to them while internally processing those same complaints assigning XXXX case numbers and committing to written response dates in physical letters mailed to XXXX 's home. Both actions happened on the same dates. Both are documented. The contradiction between PHH 's CFPB deflection and their physical acknowledgment letters is permanent and irrefutable. XXXX has XXXX active CFPB complaints. PHH produced from XXXX 's own files every document that XXXX has spent 20 years collecting independently verified XXXX 's entire evidentiary record confirmed XXXX 's sworn confession confirmed the fabricated loan number appears nowhere in original documentation identified themselves as a debt collector on a XXXX debt and sent XXXX physical acknowledgment letters while claiming no connection. PHH assumed XXXX did not have these documents. XXXX had every one. PHH 's production constitutes an independent confirmation from XXXX 's own files of every element of the fraud XXXX has been documenting since XXXX. XXXX Democratic members of the XXXX Banking XXXX have been briefed on this case including XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX 's son XXXX was XXXX XXXX XXXX when his home was sold. The consequences have continued for 16 years and 4 months. XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Bankruptcy XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX of Florida.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation