Consumer complaint received 2025-12-01 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — VA mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Loan sold or transferred to another company
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
Forensic Investigation and Chain of Title Analysis : XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Loan No. XXXX ) 1. Executive Forensic Abstract This report constitutes a comprehensive forensic examination of the residential mortgage loan originated by Darrick L. XXXX and Julita V. XXXX ( hereinafter " Borrowers '' ) regarding the real property located at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Georgia XXXX. The investigation was precipitated by allegations of fraud, defective chain of title, and the fabrication of legal instruments by sophisticated financial entities including, but not limited to, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. ( XXXX  ), XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), and their respective agents. The core of this analysis relies on a deep review of the internal audit documents, sworn affidavits, and depositions contained within the evidentiary file " XXXX XXXX ''. 
The forensic evidence uncovers a fatal breach in the chain of title that occurred as early as XXXX. The investigation confirms that the subject loan was securitized and sold into the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX mere weeks after origination. This securitization event effectively removed the asset from the balance sheet of the original lender, XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX. Consequently, the loan could not have been legally transferred to XXXX XXXX during the XXXX corporate acquisition of XXXX  mortgage division, nor could it have been seized by the FDIC in XXXX as a XXXX XXXX, nor subsequently sold to XXXX XXXX. 
The documents recorded in the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX the assignments attempting to bridge the gap between the FDIC and XXXXexhibit the classic hallmarks of " robo-signing '' and document fabrication. These instruments attempt to retroactively convey an interest that the grantor ( FDIC ) did not possess. Furthermore, the analysis of the Limited Power of Attorney ( LPOA ) utilized to execute these assignments reveals distinctive anomalies, including mismatched effective dates and footer inconsistencies, suggesting the document was structurally altered or " frankened '' to create the appearance of authority. 
This report integrates the findings of the BP Investigative Agency, Certified Forensic Loan Auditors ( CFLA ), and the sworn testimony of XXXX Operations Unit Manager XXXX XXXX to construct a definitive timeline of title corruption. The findings suggest that the current claimant, presumably Bank of America , N.A . via assignment from XXXX, lacks the requisite legal standing to enforce the security deed, as the chain of title is severed at the XXXX XXXX trust level. 
2. Origination and the Initial Securitization Event 2.1 The Primary Transaction ( XX/XX/XXXX ) The foundation of the debt obligation was established on XX/XX/XXXX. The Borrowers executed a Promissory Note and a Security Deed in favor of XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX, an Ohio XXXX. The principal amount of the indebtedness was {$110000.00}, bearing a fixed interest rate of 7.000 % per annum, with a maturity date set for XX/XX/XXXX. 
The transaction was underwritten as a Department of Veterans Affairs ( VA ) guaranteed loan, identified by VA Case Number XXXX and Lender Loan Number XXXX. The involvement of the VA is a critical forensic detail, as VA loans were prime collateral for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX  XXXX ) securitization pools during this era. Unlike conventional loans which might be portfolio-held or sold to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX VA loans were almost exclusively channeled into XXXX XXXX Mortgage-Backed Securities ( MBS ) to provide liquidity to the lending market.

The settlement statement ( HUD-1 ) confirms that the funds were disbursed, and the loan closed on XX/XX/XXXX. At the moment of closing, XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX held both the legal title ( via the Security Deed ) and the beneficial interest ( via the Note ). However, the forensic timeline indicates that XXXX 's intent was never to hold the loan, but to act as a conduit for the secondary market. 
XXXX The Transfer to XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) The most pivotal document in the entire chain of titleand the one that effectively renders subsequent assignments voidis the Assignment of Deed of Trust executed on XX/XX/XXXX. This document, identified in the BP Investigative Agency audit, explicitly transfers the beneficial interest in the XXXX loan from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ). 
| Transaction Component | Details | | -- -| -- -| | Assignor | XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Government XXXX Mortgage XXXX XXXX XXXX ) | | Date of Execution | XX/XX/XXXX ( 15 days after closing ) | | Signatory | XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX | | Notary | XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX IL ) | | Corporate Seal | Affixed ( XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX This assignment is legally significant because it represents a " true sale '' of the asset. Once XXXX assigned the deed to XXXX XXXX, XXXX was divested of its ownership interest. It likely retained " servicing rights '' the contractual duty to collect payments and interact with the borrowerbut it no longer held the " beneficial interest '' required to sell the loan to another entity or to foreclose in its own name as a creditor. 
2.3 The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX Following the assignment to XXXX XXXX XXXX the loan was pooled into a securitization trust. XXXX  XXXX forensic audit performed by XXXX XXXX identifies the specific vehicle as XXXX XXXX XXXX Trust XXXX. 
Trust Characteristics : * XXXX XXXX : XXXX. 
* Issue Date : XX/XX/XXXX. 
* Pricing Date : XX/XX/XXXX. 
* Settlement Date : XX/XX/XXXX. 
* Sponsors : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
* Trustee : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( later acquired by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 
* Collateral Type : XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
The Prospectus Supplement for this Trust confirms that XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX acted as the Depositor. The underlying collateral consisted of loans with characteristics matching the XXXX XXXX ( 7.0 % interest rate range, origination in early XXXX, Georgia property ). 
Mechanics of the Transfer : When the loan was placed into XXXX  Trust XXXX, the Note would have been endorsed in blank or specifically endorsed to the Trustee ( XXXX XXXX XXXX  ). The physical document should have been delivered to the Document Custodian for the Trust. XXXX XXXX, as the guarantor, guarantees the timely payment of principal and interest to the bondholders ( Certificate Holders ) of the XXXX  XXXX. XXXX XXXX does not typically own the loans directly unless the Issuer defaults ; rather, the Trust owns the loans. However, the recorded assignment explicitly names " XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX '' as the assignee, which solidifies the fact that the loan left XXXX 's books. 
3. The Broken Chain : Corporate Mergers vs. Asset Transfers A fundamental misunderstandingor deliberate misrepresentationprevalent in the mortgage industry regarding " acquisition by merger '' lies at the heart of the XXXX case. Foreclosing banks frequently argue that if Bank A bought Bank B, Bank A automatically owns all loans ever originated by Bank B. This is legally incorrect regarding securitized assets. 
3.1 The XXXX Transaction XXXX XXXX ) In XXXX, Washington XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the residential mortgage banking business of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX This transaction included XXXX Mortgage XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
The Forensic Conflict : * XXXX 's Claim : XXXX acquired the XXXX loan from XXXX in XXXX because it bought XXXX 's mortgage division. 
* The Reality : XXXX could only acquire assets that XXXX owned in XXXX. Since the XXXX loan was sold to XXXX XXXX in XXXX, it was not an asset of XXXX in XXXX. It was an asset of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
* Result : XXXX acquired, at best, the servicing rights to the XXXX loan. Servicing rights allow a bank to collect payments for a fee, but they do not convey ownership of the Note or the right to foreclose as the " secured creditor ''. 
Therefore, when XXXX operated between XXXX and XXXX, it was acting as a servicer for the XXXX XXXX XXXX, not as the owner of the XXXX loan. This distinction is critical because only the owner ( or a properly authorized agent of the owner ) has the standing to foreclose. 
3.2 The Collapse of XXXX  XXXX ( XXXX ) On XX/XX/XXXX, the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) closed XXXX XXXX XXXX and appointed the FDIC as receiver. On the same day, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. ( XXXX ) entered into a Purchase and Assumption Agreement ( PAA ) with the FDIC to purchase the assets of XXXX. 
The " Book Value '' Limitation : The PAA between FDIC and XXXX contains specific language regarding what was purchased. Generally, XXXX purchased the " assets '' of XXXX. However, for a loan to be an " asset '' of XXXX, it must be reflected on the bank 's books as an investment or portfolio loan. 
* Since the XXXX loan was securitized in XXXX, it was an " off-balance-sheet '' asset. 
* XXXX did not own the loan ; the XXXX XXXX XXXX did. 
* Therefore, the loan did not pass to XXXX through the XXXX as an owned asset. Again, only the servicing rights would have transferred. 
XXXX. The XXXX Assignment : Anatomy of a Fabrication The investigation identifies a significant gap in the timeline between XXXX ( XXXX failure ) and XXXX. For XXXX years, there was no recorded activity assigning the loan to XXXX. Then, in XX/XX/XXXX, a flurry of documents was recorded in XXXX XXXX, Georgia. These documents appear to be manufactured to cure the defect identified above. 
XXXX The " FDIC to Chase '' Assignment ( Assignment # XXXX ) On XX/XX/XXXX, a document titled " Georgia Assignment of Security Deed '' was executed and subsequently recorded in Book XXXX, Page XXXX. 
Document Analysis : * Grantor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( FDIC ) as Receiver for XXXX XXXX XXXX 
* Grantee : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. 
* Signatory : " XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, as Attorney-in-Fact for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX * Witness/Notary : Executed in XXXX XXXX XXXX Louisiana ( a known hub for XXXX 's document processing center ). 
Forensic Red Flags : * Self-Assignment : The document is signed by XXXX employees XXXX behalf of the FDIC, assigning the loan to XXXX. While Limited Powers of Attorney ( LPOA ) exist, their use to assign assets six years after a bank failure is legally contentious and often indicative of " cleaning up the file '' rather than a genuine transaction. 
* XXXX XXXXguage : The assignment states it is " intended to further memorialize the transfer that occurred by operation of law on XX/XX/XXXX. '' This " memorialization '' language is a common legal fiction used to create a paper trail where none existed. If the transfer happened by operation of law, a specific assignment of the deed would arguably not be necessary unless the chain was broken. 
* Impossibility of Conveyance : As established in Section 2, XXXX did not own the loan ; XXXX XXXX did. The FDIC, standing in the shoes of XXXX, can not assign what XXXX did not possess. Therefore, this assignment purports to transfer a nullity. It is void ab initio. 
4.2 The " Chase to Bank of America '' Assignment ( Assignment # 3 ) On the same day, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX executed a second assignment transferring the XXXX Deed to Bank of America , N.A . ( Recorded in Book XXXX, Page XXXX ). 
The Daisy Chain of Invalidity : Because the transfer from FDIC to XXXX was void ( due to lack of underlying ownership ), XXXX obtained no valid interest in the property. Consequently, XXXX had zero interest to convey to Bank of America. Under the legal principle nemo dat quod non habet ( no one gives what they do not have ), the assignment to Bank of America is equally void. Bank of America 's current claim to the property rests entirely on this defective chain. 
4.3 The " XXXX 's Affidavit '' The investigation notes the existence of a " XXXX 's Affidavit '' filed in the XXXX XXXX records. Such affidavits are typically reserved for correcting minor clerical errors ( e.g., a misspelled name or incorrect lot number ). However, in forensic audits of distressed loans, XXXX 's Affidavits are frequently weaponized to materially alter documentssuch as changing the borrower 's name or the legal descriptionwithout the borrower 's re-execution. In the context of the XXXX loan, where the chain of title is demonstrably broken, the presence of a XXXX 's Affidavit serves as an indicator of an attempt to " patch '' fatal defects in the record without proper legal authority. 
XXXX. The XXXX XXXX Deposition : Systemic Admissions The uploaded research material includes a substantial transcript of a deposition of XXXX XXXX, an Operations Unit Manager for XXXX XXXX. Although this deposition was taken in a different case ( JPMC v. XXXX ), the testimony provided is systemic in nature and directly impeaches the documentation practices used in the XXXX loan. 
5.1 The Myth of the Loan Schedule A critical defense raised by XXXX in foreclosure cases is that they purchased " all '' loans. When pressed for evidence of a specific loan 's purchase, they rely on the PAA. However, XXXX admits under oath that no inventory exists. 
* Q : " Are you aware of any type of schedule of loans that would have been created...? '' * A ( XXXX ) : " I know that there was a schedule contemplated in certain documents related to the purchase. That schedule has never materialized in any form. We've looked for it in countless other cases. We've never been able to produce it ... as far as I know, it doesn't exist ... '' Implication for XXXX Loan : XXXX can not prove they purchased the XXXX loan from the FDIC because they can not produce a schedule listing it. They rely on a general assumption. However, since the XXXX loan was securitized to XXXX XXXX in XXXX, it would not have been on XXXX 's books, and thus would not have transferred automatically. The lack of a schedule prevents XXXX from overcoming this fact. 
5.2 The Non-Existence of Assignments XXXX further testifies regarding the existence of assignments from XXXX to Chase : * Q : " Have you ever seen a FDIC bill of sale or ... assignment of mortgage or an allonge? '' * A ( XXXX ) : " No there is no assignments of mortgage. There's no allonges.... I've never once seen an assignment of mortgage. There is simply not they don't exist. '' Implication for XXXX XXXX : This testimony confirms that the XXXX assignment recorded in XXXX XXXX was not a contemporaneous document created during the XXXX transaction. It was created ex post facto by the litigation team or a third-party vendor ( XXXX, XXXX ) specifically to facilitate foreclosure. This reinforces the argument that the assignment is a fabrication designed to manufacture standing for litigation. 
5.3 Endorsements in Blank XXXX testifies that it was XXXX 's standard practice to endorse notes in blank immediately upon origination to facilitate sale to the secondary market. 
* A ( XXXX ) : " Immediately the -- that note is endorsed in blank, contemplating that the loan is going to be sold off. '' Implication for XXXX Loan : While an endorsement in blank turns the note into bearer paper, the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) requires a complete chain of endorsements from the originator to the Trustee. 
* " XXXX XXXX requires that the chain of endorsements from the originator of the loan to the pooling Issuer of the note be complete. '' If the XXXX note consists of a single endorsement in blank from XXXX, it technically violates XXXX XXXX custody requirements if the intervening transfers ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) are not endorsed. Furthermore, if the note was endorsed in blank and held by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ), XXXX would not have physical possession of it. XXXX 's claim to be the " holder '' of the note often relies on the Constructive Possession doctrine, which is legally weak if the physical note is in a vault controlled by a separate Trustee. 
6. The Limited Power of Attorney ( LPOA ) Anomalies The assignment from FDIC to XXXX relies on a Limited Power of Attorney ( LPOA ) to grant XXXX the authority to sign on behalf of the FDIC. The forensic audit by XXXX XXXX identifies a critical defect in the LPOA recorded in connection with these types of loans. 
The " Frankenstein '' Document : The LPOA presented in the exhibits appears to be an assembled documenta composite of pages from different documents. 
* Pages 1-3 : The footer text reads : " Limited Power of Attorney for XXXX XXXX XXXX Effective - XX/XX/XXXX thru XX/XX/XXXX. '' * Page 4 ( Signature Page ) : The footer text reads : " Limited Power of Attorney for XXXX XXXX... Effective - XX/XX/XXXX thru XX/XX/XXXX. '' Forensic Conclusion : The discrepancy in the effective dates in the footers strongly suggests that the signature page was detached from a different LPOA ( one expiring in XXXX ) and attached to the body of a text ( expiring in XXXX ). In forensic document examination, this is a primary indicator of document manipulation. If the signature page does not belong to the text, the Power of Attorney is invalid. Consequently, the assignment executed under this invalid power is void, leaving XXXX with no authority to assign the XXXX XXXX to Bank of America. 
XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX Trust and XXXX Data To scientifically verify the securitization of the XXXX loan, the investigation utilized the XXXX Professional Service terminal, a gold standard for financial data analysis. 
XXXX Trust Identification The XXXX search conducted by Certified Forensic Loan Auditors ( CFLA ) matched the specific characteristics of the XXXX loan ( Origination Date : XX/XX/XXXX ; Amount : {$110000.00} ; State : GA ; Rate : 7.0 % ) to the XXXX XXXX XXXX Trust XXXX. 
XXXX XXXX Structure and Tranches The XXXX XXXX XXXX Trust XXXX is a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit . This structure slices the cash flows from the pooled loans into various " tranches '' ( slices ) with different maturities and risk profiles. 
* Issuance Date : XX/XX/XXXX. 
* Tranches : The trust contains multiple tranches ( e.g., Class A, Class B, Class Z ). The XXXX XXXX shows tranche details such as " XXXX XXXX, '' " XXXX XXXX, '' etc. 
* Residual Interests : The structure separates the principal and interest components. 
Legal Significance : Once a loan is securitized into a XXXX, the tax code ( 26 U.S.C. 860A-G ) imposes strict rules on the transfer of assets. Loans can not simply be " pulled out '' of a XXXX trust and placed onto a bank 's balance sheet without triggering significant tax events ( prohibited transactions ). There is no evidence in the XXXX data or county records that the XXXX loan was ever removed from the XXXX XXXX. 
This confirms that the beneficial owner of the XXXX loan is, and likely always has been since XXXX, the Trustee of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for the benefit of the certificate holders. Bank of America 's claim to be the owner via the XXXX assignment is contradicted by the immutable structure of the XXXX XXXX. 
8. Violation of Georgia RICO and Fraud Statutes The Borrowers ' affidavit references the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ( RICO ) Act ( O.C.G.A. 16-14-1 et seq. ). The findings of this report provide a factual basis for such claims.

Predicate Acts of Racketeering : Under Georgia law, " racketeering activity '' includes theft, fraud, and false statements. The systematic practice of : * Filing False Documents : Recording assignments in the public record ( XXXX XXXX ) that contain materially false statements ( e.g., claiming a transfer occurred " by operation of law '' when the asset was not owned by the transferor ). 
* Theft by Deception : Attempting to collect debt payments or foreclose on property based on a fraudulent chain of title.

* Mail/Wire Fraud : Using the mail ( sending Notices of Sale ) or wire transfers ( collecting mortgage payments ) in furtherance of the scheme to enforce a void debt. 
The evidence suggests that XXXX and its agents engaged.It is rather XXXX Broken that this Chain of Title Theft was and is still being ignored.I am asking you all to Please be curious enough to see how such a large theft transfers are still causing Veterans to loose their homes and it appears that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX lost his rights straight out the Gate. 
In XXXX We Trust XXXX  XXXX The XXXX Family still Fighting to return Home

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation