Consumer complaint received 2023-01-05 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — VA mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — 
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
What is needed in this matter are the documents Wells Fargo Bank needs to provide to me that I have a right to and the audit of my mortgage servicing account, with the alleged purchase agreement between XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX ) and XXXX or XXXX XXXX who XXXX said it was working for when they foreclosed on my property on XX/XX/XXXX. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX made it look as if they were the " Holder in due course '' in title when in fact they were not. XXXX did not hold a financial interest in my Dept of VA loan, and has said that they as the servicer is authorized to stand in for the owner of the debt, but XXXX did not record any documentation to XXXX XXXX XXXX of Deeds that provided that any entity was the owner of the debt as XXXX had stop existing on XX/XX/XXXX, without itself submitting a XXXX XXXX Deed of Trust. All that XXXX has in the servicing file is a Mortgage Note that was twice endorsed, once by XXXX XXXX Bank ( XXXX ) when selling the debt to XXXX who XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, entered into a sale of the mortgage servicing rights of 1.3 million Fed Gov backed mortgage loans. The servicing agreement only XXXX the servicing of the loan that XXXX possesses which their rights ended when the FDIC on XX/XX/XXXX, declared XXXX a " failed bank ''. the other endorsement was was a blank endorsement was due to the placement of the mortgage loan into the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, as the mortgage Note was relinquished to XXXX XXXX without a sale of the mortgage debt as XXXX is not authorized to buy or sale mortgage loans! XXXX XXXX was in the first position having had purchase the XXXX mortgage attached to my property from XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX when there was this mass assignment by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, ending around XX/XX/XXXX, the recording of the Limited Power of Attorney ( POA ) created on XX/XX/XXXX, by XXXX XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX the fact that XXXX did not provide the correct titling documents to XXXX XXXX per correspondent agreement. So XXXX did not assign to XXXX the assignment of DOT because that assignment would have to inform the register that the DOT was illegally recorded on XX/XX/XXXX which was 21 days after XXXX sold the loan to XXXX and also the court needed to know that on XX/XX/XXXX, the mortgage Note was endorsed in blank and relinquished to XXXX XXXX, so XXXX did not own the NOTE! So as XXXX assigned all the other XXXX XXXX my loan was not assigned at that time when XXXX existed as there was no Subornation agreement from XXXX. XXXX through MERS was assigned the DOT on XX/XX/XXXX and that changed the mortgage position in this crime to XXXX who not the " holder in due course '' and because XXXX does not exist it can not be in title nor XXXX who not a lender and can not buy or sale a mortgage loan. XXXX who was paid nothing out of this illegal foreclosure and who has an option under XXXX to modify that debt or sale the property and recover its {$50000.00} however XXXX illegally foreclosed when the correct process was under UCC9 to show proof of who actually was owed a debt. XXXX was owed a debt and was in XXXX position after XX/XX/XXXX, so this was a XXXX decision not a XXXX of any other party. This is exactly why the UCC9 is there as there is a dispute over ownership and XXXX has XXXX proof of ownership. XXXX did not follow the rules when I first submitted the financial packet for the XXXX which was on XX/XX/XXXX according the the supplement statement form XXXX employee XXXX XXXX, XXXX did receive that financial packet via facsimile. XXXX had a duty to within 10 business days following receipt of an Initial XXXX, the service must acknowledge in writing the borrower 's requesting for XXXX participating by sending the borrower confirmation that the Initial XXXX was received, and a description of the servicer 's evaluation process and timeline. At no time did XXXX comply with the rule of XXXX as there were not at the time processing Dept oXXXX VA homeowners for the XXXX. XXXX XXXX write ; When XXXX XXXX provide documentation indicating a monthly VA XXXX benefit of {$840.00}, the entire amount was included into our calculation. XXXX in order to place blame on me saying that I did not provide or there was need of updated documents when in fact they had all the documents they required of the XXXX XXXX. XXXX has the documents for a full 30 days but because they were not performing any XXXX underwriting on XXXX XXXX VA loans, Supplemental Directive XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXX, page XXXX Evidence of Income ; The income evidence and financial information provided by the borrower XXXX not be more than 90 days old as of the date of the Initial Package is received by the servicer. as XXXX employee XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. He noted VA was going to participate in the XXXX program, and then they decided to create their own program, so they put a stop of all XXXX reviews for VA loans. XXXX acknowledge that VA loans don't qualify for regular XXXX program. XXXX claims at the time of the review of the XXXX 's loan, they did not review it for the VA XXXX program because it was not available at that time. XXXX hired Promontory Financial to handle the XXXX Foreclosure XXXX XXXX ( IFR ) and they agreed with me and XXXX have to pay {$6000.00}. for not offering me the protected TARP program in the XXXX or VA XXXX. However as with the other XXXX victims from XXXX through XXXX who were denied HAMPs modifications and XXXX were illegally foreclosed because of wrong calculations as XXXX did not calculated the XXXX pay of XXXX XXXX VA borrowers with adjusting up 25 % of the Net Pay as VA XXXX pay is 100 % without taxes! XXXX only half trains it staff and they are incapable of acting in a lawful manner as the staff is not aware in this last consent order that XXXX is guilt of abuse XXXX XXXX of its customers. The staff simply ignores all the other crimes XXXX has committed! We have a HUD investigation were XXXX staff is interviewed explaining what happen about the failure to modify under TARP protections!

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