Consumer complaint received 2025-02-24 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Auto debt
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: Southern Auto Finance Co
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
I am a formal consumer/customer of SAFCO, the originator and servicing acting as a custodian for securities as well as acting as debt collectors at the same time. I am creating a real defense claim and complaint against SAFCO.

The retail installment sales contract from the auto dealer located in XXXX XXXX, SAFCO breached the terms of the agreement. SAFCO is NOT a holder in due course, especially if they have sold the original auto loan or auto receivable ( s ) loan to other investors, for the benefit of their executive partners. I am also claiming theft by conversion against SAFCO for the conversion of my retail installment sales contract from the dealer by converting the note into a SAFCO auto receivables within their Trusts, XXXX, and XXXX, where notes are newly issued asset-backed securities collateralized by a trust certificate backed by a pool of subprime auto loans receivables. These assets-based securities are backed by SAFCO borrower 's consumer debts that are used for personal consumption. My signature did not agree to be on any retail installment sales contract agreement from the dealer to be converted into securities in any situation, nor did I give SAFCO any verbal or written consent to such unjust enrichment. I didn't nor do I consent for my auto loan to be sold to other investors or traded on the global capital markets. Conversion in law means the wrongful taking and exercising of ownership over another person 's property WITHOUT their consent. When an auto loan is " securitized '', it is essentially created in a pool of other loans to be sold to investors as a security on the market, meaning the ownership of the loan technically transfers from the original lender to the investor pool. 
How could I have any knowledge of this happening? 
I didn't receive full disclosure of the agreement, only the section where I have to repay this promissory note back. 

The signature means that I agree to the validity of the agreement, which I do not. I am demanding, removing and unbinding myself from this fraud in factum agreement due to unjust enrichment. I do not engage in criminal activities, it goes against my true morals, ethics and values, integrity, character, dignity and most all the four virtues : Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, and Temperance. The unjust enrichment also goes against my spiritual beliefs. 

Did the lender notified me that the auto loan would be securitized and converted to back other assets? No, the lender didn't. 

Does the lender have written authorization from this transaction from me? No, the lender did not have any written authorization from me to do such criminal act. This in fact is Fraud in factum ( fraud in execution ).

I'm REQUESTING again for the RECORDS showing the chain of ownership, since the debt has been sold. This in Fraud in factum and it changes the cost and risk of the alleged transaction and agreement.

Once, again SAFCO is NOT a holder in due course, I AM! 

Furthermore, the evidence shows that the substance is within the bookkeeping entries ( GAAP ) which has been violated too, and the opposite of the form, substantially changing the cost and risk of the alleged transaction and agreement. This was the opposite from what I understood the agreement to be. I am REQUESTING the bookkeeping journey entries as well as the double-bookkeeping entries to prove to see what party funded the loan and whose to be repaid the money? 

If SAFCO can not tell me this answer, this is what you call economics similar to swindling. 

I want to know who owns the note/asset? 

Where is the note? 

Upon on demand, I DEMAND to have the original note/asset back unaltered. 
A certified copy is NOT an original, unaltered loan agreement = no personal knowledge. I am making a claim against the terms and conditions of the note. 
A Competent witness must have personal knowledge and a copy is hearsay. 

I am requesting explanation to me because I want to know what the true terms and the conditions are of the agreement. 

By right, I have the right to know and understand the entire agreement, the economics of the agreement and the bookkeeping entries. 
I have the right to know, SAFCO.

Is the party who provided the asset that gave value to the alleged bank loan check, per the bookkeeping entries, to be repaid an equal amount of value, for the value that was earlier provided to fund the loan check?

SAFCO, I demand that the company give all of the details of the bookkeeping entries.

Explain what is and is not money, money equivalent and credit.

Explain the economics of the transaction.

Now, I challenge SAFCO again to prove that the economics are not similar to stealing, counterfeiting and swindling and that the GAAP principle of matching was not applied by the matching the new asset with a bank liability showing that the bank or SAFCO owes money to the alleged borrower as indicated in the Federal Reserve Bank publication. 
When an originator issues a loan and receives a promissory note from the borrower, that note is considered an asset from the bank or SAFCO because it now represents a future claim to money from the borrower. 
According to the XXXX Federal Reserve Bank 's " XXXX XXXX XXXX '' page XXXX, when a bank make a loan, they record the promissory note ( the borrower 's promise to repay ) as an asset on their balance sheet, which is then offset by a new liability in the form of the borrower 's transaction account, essentially the funds deposited into their " checking account '' from the loan amount. 
According to GAAP, generally accepted accounting principles, a bank liability means that the bank owes money and cash, money is recorded as a bank asset. A check isn't money, but it acts like money, with the presumption that money is first deposited to make the check good. Federal Reserve Bank XXXX XXXX publication banking basics, page XXXX claims that the money deposited belongs to the depositors. When the bank deposited the money from the promissory note, the money deposited was a loan to the bank. This is consistent with GAAP and the matching principles.

So, I want to know, " The party who funded the loan, per the bookkeeping entries, be repaid the money?

I demand SAFCO to produce the bookkeeping entries to prove the promissory note was not used to give value to the check and that SAFCO or the bank money was used to fund the loan. Now, if this is the case, the bookkeeping entries would be a debited to a checking account, or a demand deposit account or a savings account and a credit to cash. 
Therefore, according to the bookkeeping entries, should the value of the money or asset that was used to fund or give value to the loan be returned to the original party who provided the money or asset? 

I am always willing to repay the loan in the same species of money/credit they used to fund the loan per GAAP, thus ending all interest and liens, if SAFCO can show me the original, unaltered note, not forgery and that SAFCO purchased it from me ( not stolen ) and followed GAAP, before tendering payment.

If SAFCO can get money or an asset for free from the borrower or steal it by knowingly hiding the full terms of the agreement and then return the money to the victim as a loan, they could nearly own everything in the nation similar to the economics of counterfeiting. 

Finally, the alleged loan I had was and still is a high loan value ( LTV ) loan that would have taken a lot longer to build equity in the vehicle compared to someone else that has a loan with a lower LTV, thereby increasing the chance of me defaulting due to my negative equity position. The loss was severity, and the default increased the liquidation proceeds that was insufficient to cover the defaulted loan balance. To top that off the inflated used vehicle market is formulated on a base case cumulative gross default and recovery assumptions by reviewing SAFCO 's historical default and recovery data.

SAFCO has failed to collect fairly and protect my non-public information from the public and third parties that are affiliated with them. As a debt collector SAFCO has violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) by not providing me with a " validation information '' about the alleged debt as well as no supporting documentation.

The law states that the information must be " clear and conspicuous ''. SAFCO supposed to provide me with the debt collector 's name, information about the alleged debt and a statement that the collector is confirming, or correcting location information. Nothing else. 
I have created an under-Oath Affidavit to validate their claim but refused to sign it under oath. 
Please answer every last question that's on this complaint or I will assume an agreement doesn't exist. 

When there is equal protection, there are no economics similar to stealing, counterfeiting and swindling. Please tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the trust, so XXXX help you?

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation