Consumer complaint received 2017-06-26 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — 
Company: Ocwen Financial Corporation
State: MD

Complaint narrative:
After conducting an in-depth review of my mortgage transaction and the conveyances of the subject property, I have found a number of violations with respect to the following Assignments. EXHIBIT A : Upon information and belief XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX are employees of XXXX XXXX XXXX and not XXXX XXXX and or XXXX. XXXX testified in a XX/XX/XXXX foreclosure case in Florida that he signed up to 5,000 mortgage assignments per day at the loan-servicing company. Although he is an employee of XXXX, he signed the documents as a " vice president '' of XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX and other institutions. ( See : Case # XXXX, XXXX Court of the XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX County, FL ) In his deposition, XXXX said XXXX multiplied his output by electronically stamping his signature on additional mortgage assignments that XXXX said he never saw. <P/>He testified, too, that all the documents then were falsely notarized. XXXX 's notaries were given stacks of the already-signed documents, he said, and attested falsely that XXXX had signed the legal papers in front of them. XXXX said he did n't verify the information in the papers he signed, and that he did n't understand key words and expressions in them. On thousands of documents, a California or North Carolina address is listed directly under XXXX name to help conceal his true employer. <P/>In a Texas case involving an Assignment signed by XXXX XXXX, a Texas Court denied an Application for Order for Foreclosure on XX/XX/XXXX, after the homeowner responded to the application with allegations of fraud based in part on the conduct of XXXX. See, In re Order for Foreclosure Concerning XXXX XXXX, Cause No. XXXX, District Court for XXXX County, Texas, XXXX Judicial District. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX Correspondent, wrote an article about XXXX and XXXX Title on XX/XX/XXXX and on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX has used the following job titles : Vice President, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ; Vice President, XXXX, XXXX by XXXX XXXX XXXX, f/k/a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Its Attorney. <P/>EXHIBIT B : Upon information and belief this said Assignment is materially false, created with the intent to defraud those who might act upon the instrument and/or the information contained therein as genuine, as there is [ no ] evidence of this Assignment registered, recorded or transferred by XXXX. More specifically, there are [ no ] transfers, conveyances by XXXX beyond XX/XX/XXXX according to XXXX XXXX XXXX. <P/>The assignment contains the MIN : XXXX after conducting a search of XXXX sight, the MIN is registered to a note dated XX/XX/XXXX. ( See : Exhibit C ). Additionally, XXXX XXXX XXXX is also an employee of XXXX XXXX XXXX and NOT and employee of XXXX. Both Assignments violate Maryland Code Criminal Law Title 8 Subtitle 6, unfair and deceptive trade practices as defined in 13-301 of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ( MCPA ) Md. Commercial Law Code Ann, The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 812. Furnishing certain deceptive forms [ 15 USC 1692j ] and 808. Unfair practices [ 15 USC 1692f ], 8 U.S. Code 1324c and the Maryland Mortgage Fraud Protection Act ( Md. Code, Real Prop. 7-401 et seq. and 7-402 ).

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