Consumer complaint received 2016-02-12 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)
Issue: Application, originator, mortgage broker — 
Company: Quality Loan Service Corporation
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
Quality Loan Servicing - did not DENY errors in complaint XXXX - MORE QUESTIONS In all prior complaints QLS PROVIDE evidence something went wrong I have provided NEW EVIDENCE in last complaint to QLS that has not been addressed or answered. 
QLS like to say unintelligible questions- there are no unintelligible questions - OBVIOUS ERROS QLS is a trustee to protect all parties involved QLS has confirmed XXXX XXXX XXXX for QLS when the NO RECORD OF TDUS was filed in county recorders QLS - there is a statutory damage of XXXX bond to cover the filing of NO RECORD TDUS document in county recorders QLS want to OK its OWN wrong based on years ago- IS does not matter that is was in XXXX - THE discovery has bought more question that need an answer. 

QLS - this document confirms my interest in the property as of XXXX - THE TDUS is considered voidable and possible invalid on its face. 

The matter is still ongoing QLS - Response below Quality Loan Service Corporation ( " Quality '' ) is a trustee company that processes non judicial foreclosures. Quality is neither the Beneficiary of the subject Deed of Trust ( " DOT '' ) nor the loan servicer. Quality is the Trustee that advanced a non judicial foreclosure pursuant to the terms of the DOT that XXXX XXXX executed on XXXX XXXX, XXXX. Quality claims no ownership or security interest in the subject real property whatsoever. The foreclosure sale occurred on XXXX XXXX, XXXX. 

RESPONSE - TDUS is VOID and INVALID on its FACE First and foremost, we note that this is XXXX XXXX seventh Complaint with the CFPB. XXXX XXXX allegations are largely unintelligible in her most recent Complaint. We note that Quality has diligently responded to all previous inquiries. However, it does not appear that XXXX XXXX has raised any new issues. All of XXXX XXXX previous concerns have been addressed and responded to by Quality. It is Quality 's opinion that the foreclosure was properly advanced pursuant to the requirements of the DOT and California statutory authority. 

RESPONSE- THERE ARE NEW ISSUES AS PROVIDED SEE ATTACHED. 
ITS CLEAR THE FORECLOSURE WAS NOT PROPERLY HANDLED - NO RECORD IS CLEAR AND DILIGENTLY REVIEWED AND SEARCHED OVER 6 MONTHS - THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I PRESENTED DOCUMENT - THEREFORE QLS CANT SAY NO NEW DISCOVERY OR INFORMATION To the extent that XXXX XXXX continues to raise questions with regards to her bankruptcy proceeding, we note that Quality has already responded to XXXX XXXX inquiries. We would encourage her to discuss these questions with her bankruptcy attorney. In an effort to resolve this matter, Quality would again point out that presuming XXXX XXXX is referencing bankruptcy number XXXX, that bankruptcy petition was not filed until XXXX/XXXX/XXXX and relief from the automatic stay was obtained on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. Quality recorded the Notice of Default ( NOD ) on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX and the Notice of Sale was recorded on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. The foreclosure sale occurred on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. As such, it is our position that the foreclosure did not violate the automatic stay. 

TO DATE QLS HAS NEVER SENT ANY DOCUMENT TO ATTORNEY OF RECORD ACKNOWLEDGING BANKRUPTCY STAY - QLS IS USING INFORMATION MYSELF AND XXXX HAS PROVIDED - ALL ACTION STOPS WHEN BANKRUPTCY IS FILED - QLS AT NO TIME STOPPED ANY ACTION Additionally, from what Quality can discern from her Complaint, it appears that XXXX XXXX questions the identity of the beneficiary of the DOT foreclosed upon. However, XXXX XXXX Complaint thereafter appears to quote the explanation previously provided by Quality as to the identity of the beneficiary. Quality is unable to determine what issues XXXX XXXX has with regards to the foreclosure, which occurred almost seven years ago. 

THE ISSUE IS CLEAR THE TDUS CANT BE VERIFIED AS REQUIRED BY LAW WHICH IS VOIDABLE

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation