Consumer complaint received 2025-08-18 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Other type of mortgage
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage — Confusing or misleading advertising or marketing
Company: Temple View Capital Funding, LP
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
I am making a new complaint against TVC Funding for their role in our XXXX XXXX. Transaction regarding the deed to our property located at XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX TX in which TVC funding played a direct role and is part of the fraudulent and deceptive transaction. This transaction required the deed to our property be used as collateral and we contacted XXXX after doing a XXXX search for Heloc Loan that is what we asked for when we spoke with XXXX XXXX of XXXX the Sales Staff that was employed by them. We didnt call TVC funding for a loan we contacted XXXX XXXX stated above. Heloc Loan TVC funding stated in their last response that they have no contract with us. 

TVC funded and recorded a lien on XXXX homestead.

TVC admits it extended a loan on or about XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  affiliate ) and recorded a Deed of Trust on XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) against XXXX home address. That is a third-party encumbrance of a Texas homestead to finance a consumer sell-and-stay product. 
2. TVC knew the collateral was a lived-in residence with a leaseback/option structure.

TVC acknowledges ( and attaches ) the Residential Real Estate Option Agreement and an Executory Contract recorded XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ) tied to XXXX continued possession and option to repurchase. TVC can not plausibly claim commercial ignorance when the loan file and recorded instruments on their collateral show a consumer homestead sale-leaseback. 
3. TVC positions itself as a commercial lender to the XXXX entity. 
Labeling does not control. Substance does. TVC funded the very structure that functioned as a mortgage on a Texas homestead. Texas courts and federal consumer law look past form. 

These admissions defeat TVCs we have nothing to do with XXXX narrative. 



II. TVCs No Privity/ Not Our Problem Defense Fails A. DTPA liability does not require privity Under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, a consumer may sue any person who uses or employs a deceptive act in connection with the transaction. Privity is not required. 
Texas Supreme Court precedent recognizes XXXX claims against non-contracting actors whose conduct is in connection with the consumer transaction ( e.g., XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and later XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX clarifying in connection with/producing cause ). 
Here, TVC financed and secured the sale-leaseback product on the homestead. That is squarely in connection with the consumer transaction that harmed XXXX. 

XXXX XXXX ( CFPB XXXX ) covers covered persons and their service providers A covered person includes entities that extend credit or secure interests in a dwelling for consumer finance. A service provider includes those who materially participate in a covered persons offering/provision of a consumer financial product or service. 
TVCs money and deed of trust are material participation in XXXX consumer credit product ( the sell-and-stay loan masquerading as a sale ). TVC is not a passive ad space vendorit financed and collateralized the product on the homestead. Thats enough for XXXX jurisdiction. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX / XXXX conspiracy / knowing participation Even if TVC were not a creditor to XXXX, TVC can be liable for knowing participation in an unlawful scheme, including civil conspiracy. TVCs lien is the backbone that makes the scheme scale : no warehouse/bridge funding = no sell-and-stay inventory = no consumer harm. 
The underwriting file, closing instructions, leaseback/option documents, rent ledgers, and performance reports will show actual knowledge and common purpose. 



XXXX. The XXXX Sell & Stay is a Disguised Residential Mortgage on a Texas Homestead 1. Texas looks to substance over form. 
If a deed secures a debt, it is treated as a mortgage regardless of labels. A sale-leaseback with an obligation/expectation to repurchase functions as secured credit. Parol evidence is admissible to show the deed was intended as security. 
2. Texas Homestead protections ( Tex. Const. art. XVI, 50 ) are strict.

A lien on a homestead is invalid unless it fits narrow categories ( purchase money, owelty, taxes, properly originated home-equity, reverse mortgage, etc. ) and meets strict closing, disclosure, venue, and cure requirements. 
XXXX occupied homestead was leveraged to finance XXXX product through XXXX and then re-encumbered to TVC. 
If the transaction is recharacterized as a home-equity loan / loan secured by homestead, the lien is void for noncompliance with constitutional and statutory requirements ( 12-day notice, closing at lender/title/attorneys office, non-recourse limits, 80 % CLTV cap, etc. ).

A lender/assignee can not sanitize a void homestead lien by calling it commercial.

3. Bona fide lender status is unavailable to TVC A lender is protected only if it takes for value, in good faith, without notice. TVC had actual/inquiry notice from the face of its file and recorded memos : consumer seller, immediate leaseback, recorded option/executory interest, residential address, continued occupancy, and sale-leaseback marketing that flags consumer purpose. TVC is not a good-faith, no-notice lender ; its lien takes subject to XXXX equitable rights. 



IV. Point-by-Point : Why TVCs Statutory Denials Miss the Mark 1 ) Texas Property Code 5.076 / Executory-Contract Protections TVC says Subchapter D doesnt apply to a business contract and there was no conveyance between XXXX and TVC. Wrong frame : The issue is not whether XXXX contracted with TVC ; its whether the overall structure ( sale + leaseback + option/executory memorandum ) violated Texas protective statutes designed to curb deed-tricks on occupied homes. 
XXXX recorded an Executory Contract memorandum. TVC underwrote and secured that structure. To the extent Subchapter D appliesor the court applies equitable mortgage principlesTVCs lien is vulnerable because it enabled and benefited from the violative structure, with notice. 
At minimum, XXXX and the recorded executory memo put TVC on inquiry notice that the transaction bore contract-for-deed/lease-option hallmarks Texas courts scrutinize and often recharacterize as a mortgageespecially where the seller never truly surrenders the incidents of ownership ( possession, rent payments mirroring debt service, option priced as payoff, etc. ). 

2 ) Texas Finance Code 343.105 ( Home-loan protections ) TVC says it never made a home loan to XXXX. That is formalism : When substance shows a consumer-purpose, dwelling-secured extension of credit, home-loan protections apply, regardless of whether the intermediary shell is XXXX. 
You can not evade Texas home-loan rules by inserting a related LLC in the middle and calling the warehouse line commercial. 

3 ) Texas Finance Code 156.201 ( Residential mortgage company licensing ) TVC says it isnt a residential mortgage lender. That begs the core question : If the transaction is a residential mortgage in substance, then the ecosystem making/servicing/holding that loan ( including the financier securing itself on the homestead ) falls under the residential mortgage regulatory umbrella.

The license inquiry turns on what the product is in fact, not what TVC calls itself.

4 ) Texas Penal Code 32.32 ( False Statement to Obtain Property or Credit ) TVC asserts no false statements were made to XXXX and no contract existed. But material misstatements/omissions to obtain a lien on a homesteador to induce a consumer into a disguised loancan satisfy the statutes elements even where the financier acts through an affiliate. 
The record will show misrepresentations and material omissions regarding nature of the product, loss of homestead rights, true financing, and re-characterization risk. 

5 ) Texas DTPA ( Bus. & Com. Code ch. 17 ) As above, no privity is required ; liability extends to any person whose deceptive acts are in connection with the consumer transaction and a producing cause of the harm. 
TVCs money and lien are integral to the sale-leaseback product. TVC benefited from the scheme and had actual/inquiry notice of the consumer nature and risks. That is enough to keep TVC in.

6 ) TILA / RESPA / UD ( A ) AP ( CFPB Act ) TILA/RESPA apply when there is consumer credit secured by a dwelling. The proper analysis is recharacterization : if the transaction is a loan in substance, then disclosures, ability-to-repay, and other rules were triggered and evaded.

Even if TVC were not the creditor to XXXX for TILA purposes, the CFPB Acts UDAAP prohibition reaches covered persons and their service providers. TVCs financing and security interest on a homestead for a consumer credit product is material participation in offering/providing that product. Thats a UDAAP hook. 



V. TVCs We Cant Rescind Reply Misses the Point CFPB complaints do not depend on privity remedies. The Bureau may investigate and take action against covered persons and service providers for UDAAP, and can require restitution, disgorgement, and injunctive relief. 
TVC absolutely can : ( a ) release or subordinate its lien, ( b ) produce its underwriting/servicing and due-diligence files, ( c ) identify its investors/securitizations, and ( d ) implement corrective actions. Saying we cant rescind is a non-answer to regulatory liability and equitable remedies. TVC Funding Status with the State of Texas Comptrollers office status is reflected as FORFEITED They are also not licensed as required by the XXXX and neither is XXXX who has an active cease and desist order against them to seize all Brokerage Related activities in the state. This deliberate and fraudulent scheme both parties are apart of their broader scheme to steal equity and profit from selling the house violation of Federal lending laws and against the Texas Constitution. TVC funding and XXXX also deliberately attempted to hide the Commercial deed # XXXX from the public view by concealing it and not recording it with the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and only recording it with the county this deed was concealed deliberately. XXXX was recorded and contains false statements such as incomplete legal description as the reason for the warranty deed noted on the quit claim deed which is false because the quit claim deed was accepted by XXXX XXXX and recorded. These XXXX XXXX criminals need to face justice for the role in stealing peoples equity & homes. XXXX XXXX has also had previous interaction and Finra Enforcement against him. ( XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) TVC Funding Funded a loan to XXXX in their own admission in the previous complaint and that makes them part of the transaction the same as if two people robbed a bank. Also which means their lame excuse of denying to produce documents is stale and a flat out lie and deliberate attempt to evade accountability

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation