Consumer complaint received 2019-12-23 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)
Issue: Trouble during payment process — 
Company: Allied Servicing Corporation
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am filling a complaint against Allied Servicing Corporation and the President XXXX XXXX ( NMLS ID XXXX ) located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, WA XXXX. I am filling this complaint on behalf of my aunt XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Allied account # XXXX ) who owns the property at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX ( APN : XXXX ). XXXX is currently making monthly payments of approximately {$280.00} to Allied Servicing Corporation for a loan that they do not own. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX received a letter from XXXX, XXXX stating that her mortgage had been transferred from XXXX XXXX, XXXX to XXXX, XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX received a letter from Allied Servicing Corporation stating that they purchased her mortgage loan from XXXX XXXX, XXXX. I am unclear as to how two separate companies were both able to purchase her loan from XXXX XXXX, XXXX at the same time? 

The last letter XXXX received was from Allied Servicing Company on XX/XX/XXXX claiming they own XXXX loan. However, I have reviewed all of the documents in the XXXX County Recorders Office and I do not see a document that Allied Servicing Corporation owns XXXX mortgage. A document was recorded on XXXX property ( XXXX County Recorder Doc # XXXX ) that has her Allied Servicing Corporation account number on the top of the first page ( Allied account # XXXX ). This document is a Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust. This document states that XXXX XXXX owes {$29000.00} and I want to know why she owes this amount and where this number came from. This document is stating that XXXX XXXX property is in foreclosure. However, XXXX primary mortgage is owned by XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX and her payments are current. This Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust states that XXXX must contact XXXX, XXXX or Allied Servicing Corporation to make payment arrangements. I can not figure out how Allied Servicing Corporation owns this loan? On the last page of XXXX XXXX County Recorder Doc # XXXX ) Allied Servicing Corporation checked the box that requirements of CA Civil Code 2923.5 do not apply because the loan is not secured by a first mortgage or first deed of trust that secures a loan. This seems to state that Allied Servicing Corporation does not own the 2nd mortgage on Patricias property and they have no authority to collect monthly payments from her. 

In an effort to obtain loan documents, XXXX sent XXXX XXXX XXXX ( employee at Allied Servicing Corporation ) an e-mail on XX/XX/XXXX for copies of all of the loan documents. XXXX e-mailed XXXX the documents and within the documents there were 4 allonges. These Allonges were never recorded on Patricias property and were not on file with the XXXX County Recorders Office. 

XXXX received a Forbearance Agreement from Allied Servicing Company on  XX/XX/XXXX. Within this document they are penalizing XXXX back interest at 11.00 % on her mortgage loan from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX. Allied Servicing Corporation does not own her mortgage now and they did not own it starting on XX/XX/XXXX. How do they have the right to collect back interest on a loan that did not belong to them? During XXXX discussions with Allied Servicing Corporation regarding the Forbearance Agreement, they were harassing her over e-mail to get the roof of her home fixed. The Forbearance Agreement was contingent upon her getting the roof to her single-family home repaired. In fact, Allied Servicing Corporation stated that XXXX must get the roof to her home fixed within 6 months of forbearance. They stated that failure to complete a code-compliant roof fix in that time would result in reversion to defaulted status of XXXX loan! 

Prior to Allied Servicing Corporation owning XXXX XXXX XXXX mortgage it was being serviced by XXXX, XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) who also purchased XXXX mortgage from XXXX XXXX, XXXX. I filled a complaint against XXXX, XXXX with the CA District Attorneys office because I do not believe that they ever purchased XXXX mortgage. Allied Servicing Corporation sent XXXX an Authorization to Release Information and it had XXXX XXXX name on it as being a representative for XXXX, XXXX. In researching XXXX, XXXX on the State of Oregon Secretary of State website ( Registry Number XXXX ) I was unable to find that XXXX XXXX was officially affiliated with XXXX, XXXX. However, XXXX XXXX XXXX NMLS ID : XXXX ) was an employee with XXXX XXXX XXXX Mortgage XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX ) during the time period in which XXXX XXXX primary mortgage account was being serviced. Patricias mortgage loan was transferred from XXXX to her current servicing company XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. In the response letter that I received from the CA Attorney General, XXXX, XXXX claims that XXXX XXXX was a typo and a mistake made by Allied Servicing Corporation. Now I am questioning the validity of all of the documents being produced by both XXXX, XXXX and Allied Servicing Corporation. I need proof they actually own the mortgage and that the paperwork they are producing is valid. 

I am helping my aunt XXXX XXXX XXXX with this situation because she is 100 % XXXX with a XXXX XXXX XXXX and I believe that she has been scammed. I am hoping that your office can assist in following the paper trail of ownership of the Interest Only Fixed Rate Note ( 2nd mortgage ) for {$31000.00} originated by XXXX XXXX , XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, CA XXXX ) that has since gone out of business according to ( CA Dept. of Real Estate License ID : XXXX ). I should note that this 2nd mortgage is not on her credit report. In addition, from the day of origination with XXXX XXXX , XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) until XX/XX/XXXX ( letter from XXXX, XXXX XXXX she had not received any bills from any company trying to collect monthly payments on this loan. XXXX established an 80/20 spilt with XXXX XXXX , XXXX and was informed that the 1 monthly mortgage payment would cover both loans.

Company public response: Company believes the complaint is the result of a misunderstanding
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation