Consumer complaint received 2016-03-05 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure — 
Company: Quality Loan Service Corporation
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
California Supreme Court and Our Forensic Loan Audit Herein is some information surrounding our situation and we are asking for intervention on our behalf ; as The California Supreme Court indicated as shown below. 

RECENT REVELENT CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT RULING The California Supreme Court onThursday ( XX/XX/XXXX ) ruled unanimously in favor of a fraudulently foreclosed-upon XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Mortgage XXXX. 

XXXX is a link to an article on this case : XXXX Experts from this article follow : The California Supreme Court on Thursday ruled unanimously in favor of a fraudulently foreclosed-upon homeowner in a case that should serve as a wake-up call to state and federal prosecutors that mortgage companies continue to use false documents to evict homeowners on a daily basis. 

'' A homeowner who has been foreclosed on by one with no right to do so has suffered an injurious invasion of his or her legal rights at the foreclosing entity 's hands, '' the justices wrote. 

But maddeningly, practically nobody in a position of authority has stepped up to prevent those injurious invasions. 

The case, XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, sends a powerful signal from the nation 's biggest state that the massive false document scandal, first discovered nearly a decade ago, is not over, despite mortgage company promises to the contrary. 
The XX/XX/XXXXNational Mortgage Settlementwith the XXXX largest mortgage companies ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX ) included language committing the firms to end the production of false documents. But they continue to be used on a daily basis to evict homeowners. The foreclosure in the XXXX case occurred XX/XX/XXXX, seven months after the completion of the National Mortgage Settlement. 
State attorneys general and the Justice Department have every authority to assert that companies are not following the terms of the XX/XX/XXXX agreement. But instead they 've turned a blind eye, at best supporting the efforts of homeowners to challenge their own foreclosures. 

Thefollowing is a link to this case : XXXX FORENSIC LOAN AUDIT THAT WAS PERFORMED ON OUR LOAN DOCUMENTS REVEALED THE FOLLOWING We had aforensic audit done on our loan docs and the examination of the evidence available atthat time and it revealed the following facts : Presently, XXXX. reports that XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX. is the " Servicer '' of the subject transaction ; and that XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX is the " Investor. '' This indicates that the Note and Deed of Trust ( " Mortgage Loan '' ) have been sold. ( SeeExhibit C. - XXXX Research Results ) The Loan in question is being tracked as a receivable of the Structured Adjustable RateMortgage Loan Trust, Series XXXX ( " SARMS XXXX '' or " REMIC XXXX '' ). ( SeeExhibit D. - XXXX Research Results ) The Structured Adjustable Rate Mortgage Loan Trust, Series XXXX is a public offering and the related documents are available on the Securities and Exchange Commission'spublic access website at : XXXX 
The Prospectus Supplement contains a Summary of the securitization and lists the entities that were involved which may be viewed in its entirety at : XXXX # XXXX. ( SeeExhibit E. - Prospectus Supplement Excerpt ) The Trust Agreement that governs the securitization describes how the Mortgage Loans are to be conveyed into the REMIC Trust. The Trust Agreement may also be viewed inNotably, the Mortgage Loan Schedule ( " MLS '' ) that should have been att

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