Consumer complaint received 2023-02-03 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — VA mortgage
Issue: Closing on a mortgage — 
Company: FIRST INTERSTATE BANCSYSTEM, INC.
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
During the closing of our loan between XXXX XXXX Bank ( XXXX ) and my wife and I we signed a Deed of Trust ( DOT ) allowing the bank to place a lien against the property under XXXX  requirement and that lien could be transfer to successor or assign, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems ( XXXX  ) was allowed into the process by the recording of the DOT first by recording the DOT by a party that held the loan debt. Now because XXXX failed to delivery and record the DOT while having owned the loan from XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX when it sold the XXXX XXXX XXXX loan to XXXX  XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX ) on XX/XX/XXXX, but first register the loan with XXXX  on XX/XX/XXXX, before it recorded the DOT which does not start the XXXX  titling because as required the DOT must first be recorded. XXXX did endorse the Note on XX/XX/XXXX, to XXXX, however, this information was not reported to XXXX County Register of Deeds that XXXX had sold the loan to XXXX, and the fact that XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, did transfer ownership of the Note to XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, when placing my loan into their ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX as XXXX would access the XXXX  system on XX/XX/XXXX, and perform Transfer Beneficial Rights - Option XXXX, from old Investor in XXXX to new Investor XXXX XXXX, stating the effective date XX/XX/XXXX, the date the Note was endorsed in blank by XXXX and relinquished to XXXX XXXX per XXXX requirements for pooling of all XXXX pooled loans. XXXX who on XX/XX/XXXX, did deliver and cause to have record the DOT in violation to XXXX XXXX XXXX as XXXX sold the loan on XX/XX/XXXX, and has no financial interest in the loan because it has sold the loan to XXXX XXXX  days before informing the State that it still owed a debt against my property, when the fact is XXXX was not owed a debt, but XXXX was the debt holder would was not the owner of the Note as it relinquished the XXXX process blank Note to XXXX XXXX . XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, when transferring the title inside of XXXX  should know that as over XXXX  % of all XXXX XXXX XXXX  loans are XXXX pooled as my loan was, and transferring to XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, was because the loan was accepted and ownership of the Note was a requirement! XXXX ownership is not supported after the loan is pooled because XXXX is owner of the Note yet is not authorized to ever buy or sale a mortgage loan which they did not do in this case as with every loan pooled into the XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX should not have transferred titling in XXXX  which it know XXXX did not purchase the loan from them, and that XXXX purchase the loan, and that this is XXXX business and not that of XXXX who sold all interest in the loan on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX was addressing my situation when XXXX President XXXX XXXX wrote the XX/XX/XXXX, Limited Power of Attorney but not recorded at XXXX XXXX until XX/XX/XXXX, due to XXXX assigning all its XXXX XXXX Fed Gov Backed mortgage loans in a bankruptcy remote procedure to XXXX XXXX Bank who started mortgage servicing these loans on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX stops existing on XX/XX/XXXX, and could not and did not sale my mortgage loan as they transferred the Note endorsed to XXXX back on XX/XX/XXXX, which XXXX is aware of as the XXXX  Milestone report recorded the illegal transfer by XXXX to XXXX. There is no debt owned because XXXX did not own the debt and XXXX who is dead can not claim ownership and was not in title at XXXX XXXX or XXXX. So XXXX  claims it was acting as nominee for the successor because there was no assigned as XXXX  who is in violation of XXXX XXXX XXXX as it does not have a financial interest in the loan. Because XXXX illegally has recorded the DOT on XX/XX/XXXX, it set in motion the foundation of this crime just as in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the XXXX  case were XXXX could not provide proof of ownership and the judge awarded XXXX {$3.00} XXXX as the same law firm working for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX out of XXXX XXXX is also working for XXXX, XXXX and XXXX  in the illegal foreclosure on my property. The title is cloudy and is in need of quiet title!

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation