Consumer complaint received 2015-03-20 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Other mortgage
Issue: Loan servicing, payments, escrow account — 
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
WELLS FARGO AND XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX HAVE INITIATED FORECLOSURE ACTIVITY AGAINST ME ON BEHALF OF XXXX FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE HOLDERS OF THE CMLT XXXX. HOWEVER, XXXX IS NOT A VALID BENEFICIARY WITH THE AUTHORITY TO DIRECT QUALITY LOAN TO EXERCISE THE POWER OF SALE UNDER MY DEED OF TRUST. THEREFORE, THE RECENT FORECLOSURE DOCUMENTS FILED ON XXXX BEHALF ARE NULL AND VOID. 
OUR FORENSIC MORTGAGE LOAN AUDITOR UNCOVERED IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT XXXX NEVER RECEIVED EFFECTIVE ASSIGNMENT OF MY MORTGAGE LOAN FROM WELLS FARGO, THE ORIGINAL LENDER. SPECIFICALLY, WELLS FARGO SOLD MY MORTGAGE NOTE AND DEED OF TRUST IN XXXX, FOR FULL LOAN VALUE, TO XXXX AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE FOR THE CMLT XXXX MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES TRUST. FOLLOWING THIS SALE, WELLS FARGO LOST ALL TITLE TO, AND INTEREST IN, MY MORTGAGE LOAN. NEVERTHELESS, IN XXXX, XXXX, WELLS FARGO EXECUTED A CORPORATE ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST ATTEMPTING, ONCE AGAIN, TO TRANSFER MY DEED OF TRUST, BUT NOT THE NOTE, TO XXXX AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CMLT XXXX TRUST. WELLS FARGO ATTEMPTED THE ASSIGNMENT TO XXXX XXXX 6 YEARS AFTER THE CLOSING DATE OF THE TRUST ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) BECAUSE THE TRANSFERS AMONG THE PARTIES TO THE SECURITIZATION TRANSACTION WERE MADE WITHOUT THE REQUIRED ENDORSEMENT OF THE NOTE. THE XXXX ASSIGNMENT WAS A SCHEME DEVISED BY WELLS FARGO AND XXXX TO COVER UP THE BOTCHED SECURITIZATION IN XXXX. XXXX ACKNOWLEDGES THAT A BORROWER IS A PARTY TO THE SECURITIZATION TRANSACTION. THEREFORE, I HAVE THE RIGHT TO RAISES DEFECTS IN THE ATTEMPTED SECURITIZATION OF MY LOAN. SEE ATTACHED US BANK BROCHURE. 
ASIDE FROM THE FACT THAT WELLS FARGO HAD NO INTEREST IN MY MORTGAGE TO CONVEY TO ANYONE IN XXXX, THE CORPORATE ASSIGNMENT IS INVALID, NULL AND VOID FOR THE ADDITIONAL REASON THAT ONLY MY DEED OF TRUST WAS PURPORTEDLY TRANSFERRED TO XXXX. ASSIGNMENT OF THE SECURITY INSTRUMENT WITHOUT THE DEBT ( NOTE ) IS A LEGAL NULLITY. THIS IS BECAUSE THE SECURITY INSTRUMENT FOLLOWS THE NOTE BUT NOT VICE VERSA. THIS HAS BEEN THE COMMON LAW RULE FOR OVER 100 YEARS. SEE IN RE STAFF XXXX., XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX ) ( IN CALIFORNIA, " [ A ] DEED OF TRUST IS A MERE INCIDENT OF THE DEBT IT SECURES AND ... AN ASSIGNMENT OF THE DEBT CARRIES WITH IT THE SECURITY '' ). " AN ASSIGNMENT OF THE NOTE CARRIES THE MORTGAGE WITH IT WHILE ASSIGNMENT OF THE LATTER ALONE IS A NULLITY ''. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. ACCORD XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX ; UCC ARTICLE XXXX ( G ) .THE COMMON LAW RULE HAS BEEN CODIFIED IN CALIFORNIA STATUTORY LAW. CAL. CIVIL CODE SECTION XXXX ( ' [ T ] HE ASSIGNMENT OF A DEBT SECURED BY MORTGAGE CARRIES WITH IT THE SECURITY '' ). 
THE FORENSIC AUDIT OF OUR MORTGAGE LOAN ESTABLISHES CONCLUSIVELY THAT XXXX NEVER RECEIVED AN EFFECTIVE ASSIGNMENT OF MY LOAN AND IS NOT OTHERWISE A " PERSON ENTITLED TO ENFORCE '' MY MORTGAGE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ARTICLES XXXX AND XXXX OF THE UCC.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation