Consumer complaint received 2026-01-12 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Mortgage debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt was result of identity theft
Company: JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
State: DC

Complaint narrative:
I serve as Attorney-in-Fact for XXXX XXXX XXXX under a valid Limited Power of Attorney executed XX/XX/XXXX. Pursuant to XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, I am obligated to act with care, competence, diligence, loyalty, and exclusively in the best interests of my principal. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, my principal received a letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and a Substitute Trustees ' Sale notice regarding foreclosure Case No. XXXX. She forwarded these documents to me in my capacity as Attorney-in-Fact. 
The Substitute Trustees ' Sale notice was issued under the name " XXXX XXXX. '' XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX of XXXX records ( Entity ID XXXX and XXXX ) establish that XXXX XXXX, a foreign professional corporation, was statutorily converted into XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. A statutory conversion is not a merger and does not preserve the converting entity ; rather, it terminates the prior entity and creates a new legal entity in a different organizational form. Accordingly, XXXX XXXX ceased to exist as a legal entity on XX/XX/XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX became the only legally existing successor thereafter. From that date forward, XXXX XXXX lacked all legal capacity to appear as counsel, file pleadings, issue legal notices, act as trustee or agent, possess or use consumer identifying information, or prosecute foreclosure actions. 
XXXX  Judiciary Case Search records ( retrieved XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX  ) list " XXXXXXXX XXXX '' as " Attorney ( s ) for the Plaintiff '' in Case No. XXXXnine months after the entity legally ceased to exist. No substitution of counsel was filed after XX/XX/XXXX to reflect the entity conversion. The court is being actively misled about who is prosecuting this case. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, a two-part communication was transmitted to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The cover letter bore the name " XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX '' and was signed " XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on behalf of the Substituted Trustees. '' Attached as an enclosure was an " Advertisement of Sale '' bearing the header " XXXX XXXX '' with a different address ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ). 
This structure is not incidental. It is entity bifurcation designed to separate transmission from authority. 
The cover letter is not the operative instrument. The Advertisement of Sale is. It is the Advertisement of Sale that names the consumer, identifies the property, asserts a mortgage obligation, and schedules a forced sale for XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX. The Advertisement of Sale is the document by which the power of sale under the deed of trust is exercised. That instrument was issued under the name " XXXX XXXX '' an entity that ceased to exist on XX/XX/XXXX. 
The transmission of a foreclosure sale notice " on behalf of '' unnamed trustees does not transfer or supply legal capacity. The authority to exercise a power of sale must exist in the name of the issuing entity appearing on the instrument itself. Capacity attaches to the instrument, not the courier. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX can not launder authority to a dead entity by serving as its messenger. 
A non-existent entity can not exercise a power of sale. The Advertisement of Sale issued under " XXXX XXXX '' is void ab initio. 
The unauthorized use of consumer identifying information occurs at the moment the foreclosure sale notice is issuednot when the cover letter is mailed. The Advertisement of Sale was issued when it was authored, executed, and placed into transmission bearing the name " XXXX XXXX, '' regardless of which entity physically mailed the enclosure. The Advertisement of Sale contains XXXX XXXX XXXX 's full legal name, property address, loan origination date, recording references ( XXXX  XXXX, XXXX XXXX ), Tax ID number ( XXXX ), and case number ( XXXX ). This information was used by an entity lacking legal existence to schedule the forced sale of real property. That is identity theft under 18 U.S.C. 1028 ( a ) ( 7 ). 
The cover letter contains the following disclaimer : " IN THE EVENT YOU ARE SUBJECT TO AN AUTOMATIC STAY ISSUED BY A UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY XXXX OR THE REFERENCED DEBT HAS BEEN DISCHARGED IN BANKRUPTCY, THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT INTENDED TO BE AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A DEBT. '' A disclaimer of intent does not negate the legal effect of issuing a foreclosure sale notice, which by definition asserts a debt and seeks satisfaction through forced sale. The Circuit Court for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX issued a stay on XX/XX/XXXX, continuing through XX/XX/XXXX. The communication was dated XX/XX/XXXX, XXXXduring the stay. The disclaimer does not cure the violation. Debt collection communications during a court-ordered stay violate 15 U.S.C. 1692c. 
The cover letter also states : " FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES US TO ADVISE YOU THAT COMMUNICATION WITH OUR OFFICE COULD BE INTERPRETED AS AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A DEBT AND THAT ANY INFORMATION WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE. '' The phrase " could be interpreted as '' is escape-hatch language. But interpretation is irrelevant. The attached instrumentthe Advertisement of Saleis not ambiguous. It schedules a sale to satisfy an alleged debt. That is debt collection. The voluntary inclusion of FDCPA disclosure language constitutes self-classification as a debt collector under 15 U.S.C. 1692a ( 6 ), regardless of hedging language.

The structuring of this communicationwith a cover letter bearing the name of a legally existing entity and an attached foreclosure instrument bearing the name of a non-existent entityreflects an attempt to separate transmission from authority. That separation has no legal effect. The instrument speaks for itself. And it speaks in the name of a ghost. 
The XX/XX/XXXX letter was transmitted " BY CERTIFIED MAIL AND BY FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID. '' The use of the United States Postal Service to deliver a foreclosure sale notice issued under the name of a non-existent entity, for the purpose of executing a foreclosure, constitutes mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1341. 
XXXX Judiciary Case Search records document repeated use of " Writ/Summons/Pleading - Electronic Service '' throughout this case after XX/XX/XXXX. The use of interstate wires to transmit documents, filings, and notices under the name of a non-existent entity constitutes wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1343. 
The sale notice schedules a foreclosure sale for XX/XX/XXXX, at XXXX XXXX, yet identifies no secured party and no beneficiary. Seven substitute trustees are namedXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXXbut they are agents. They can not conduct a sale without a disclosed principal. The foreclosure sale notice was issued to generate trustee fees, legal fees, and property transfer value for undisclosed beneficiaries. 
This case was filed on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXXover eight years ago. Throughout eight years of litigation, no secured party has ever been identified by name. XXXX  XXXX XXXX ( b ) ( 3 ) requires identification of the secured party. This requirement has never been satisfied. The case has been dismissed without prejudice three separate times : XX/XX/XXXX ( Judge XXXXspecifically ordered " substitute trustees ' shall forthwith advise the court, in writing, when loss mitigation review is complete '' ) ; XX/XX/XXXX ( Judge XXXX ) ; XX/XX/XXXX ( Judge XXXXspecifically DENIED Motion to Defer Dismissal, ordering XXXX XXXX 's Motion to Defer Dismissal is and shall be DENIED '' ). 
Despite three dismissals and judicial denial of deferral, the case was reopened on XX/XX/XXXX by Judge XXXX. No new secured party was identified. No substitution of counsel was filed to reflect the entity conversion that occurred five months earlier. 
A three-bureau credit report dated XX/XX/XXXX ( IdentityIQ Reference # XXXX ) shows no mortgage tradeline for XXXX XXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXX, or XXXX. No entity claims ownership of this debt in the national consumer credit system. 
The pattern of conduct in this casemail fraud, wire fraud, identity theft, and fraud on the courtconducted through an enterprise operating across state lines for the purpose of collecting debts and seizing real property, constitutes racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. 1962. 
This is not an isolated incident. XXXX operates as a foreclosure mill across XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX From XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, XXXXnine monthsevery foreclosure in which " XXXX XXXX '' appeared as counsel, issued notices, or filed documents contains the same capacity defect. Every foreclosure sale conducted under " XXXX XXXX '' after XX/XX/XXXX was void. Every property taken through those sales was taken without lawful authority. This is a documented systemic failure affecting multiple consumers across multiple jurisdictions. 
The acquisition, retention, and use of XXXX XXXX XXXX 's personal identifierslegal name, property address, loan-level account data, and origination recordsby an entity lacking legal existence, for the purpose of prosecuting a foreclosure action and scheduling a sale of real property, constitutes the unlawful appropriation of identity to generate revenue. This conduct meets the definition of identity theft under 18 U.S.C. 1028 ( a ) ( 7 ). XXXX XXXX XXXX 's identity was used to advance a void legal proceeding that, if completed, would transfer ownership of real property to an undisclosed party. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is directed to preserve, without alteration, all records, communications, metadata, entity formation and conversion documents, attorney appearance records, client engagement files, fee agreements, trustee appointment records, credit reporting data, collection activity logs, chain-of-custody materials, any internal policies or procedures governing entity conversion, foreclosure prosecution, trustee appointment, and continued use of legacy entity names, and any internal communications acknowledging entity conversion while continuing foreclosure activity under the name " XXXX XXXX '' relating to this account, Case No. XXXX, and any foreclosure action prosecuted under the name " XXXX XXXX '' after XX/XX/XXXX. 
JURISDICTIONAL VOID : DECEASED DEFENDANT XXXX  Judiciary Case Search records identify the case title as " CDM vs Entirety of XXXX XXXX. XXXX. '' The docket lists two defendants : XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX died in XXXX. 
This foreclosure action was filed on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXXtwo years after XXXX XXXX XXXX 's death. 
Under XXXX  XXXX XXXX, when a party dies before an action is filed, that party can not be named as a defendant. A deceased person can not be served, can not default, can not waive rights, and can not be subject to judgment. A court can not obtain personal jurisdiction over a non-existent person. 
For eight years, the court docket has reflected a foreclosure action that : Purports to adjudicate the rights of a person who did not exist at the time of filing Proceeded without substitution of a personal representative for the deceased defendant 's estate Proceeded without estate participation Proceeded without jurisdiction over the deceased defendant If the property at XXXX XXXX XXXX was jointly held by XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, foreclosure of jointly held property requires proper joinder of all interest holders who legally exist, or substitution of the estate before proceeding. Neither occurred. 
The plaintiffs had a duty to verify the status of named defendants before filing. They did not. The court was never informed that one of the named defendants had been dead for two years at the time of filing. 
This is not a technical defect. It is a foundational incapacity. The case could never have proceeded correctly as filed. Any attempt to proceed now does not cure the defect. The defect can not be retroactively fixed. A court can not exercise jurisdiction over a deceased defendant. 
The case has been void from filing. 
This defect compounds every other defect already on the record. The entire action has been prosecuted as if legal existence, capacity, and authority were optional. They are not. 
FORMAL RECORD OF IDENTITY THEFT The conduct documented in this complaint constitutes completed identity theft under 18 U.S.C. 1028 ( a ) ( 7 ). The offense occurred when the Advertisement of Sale was authored, executed, and placed into transmission bearing the name " XXXX XXXX '' an entity that ceased to exist on XX/XX/XXXX. 
The acquisition, retention, and use of XXXX XXXX XXXX 's personal identifiersfull legal name, property address, Tax ID number ( XXXX ), loan origination data, and recording references ( XXXX  XXXX, XXXX XXXX ) by an entity lacking legal existence, for the purpose of prosecuting a foreclosure action and scheduling a forced sale of real property, constitutes the unlawful appropriation of identity to obtain a thing of value. 
A non-existent entity possesses zero legal capacity to acquire, retain, or act upon personal identifying information. There is no exception. There is no cure. The voidness of the instrument is a legal consequence ; the identity theft is the completed act. Cessation of collection activity does not undo the unauthorized use that has already occurred. 
The identity theft is complete. It can not be cured by : Filing a substitution of counsel Withdrawing the sale notice Dismissing the foreclosure Ceasing communication Each of these actions may limit future exposure. None of them reverses the completed offense. 
By receipt of this record, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX possesses actual knowledge that : The entity under which the foreclosure sale notice was issued does not exist Consumer identifying information was used without lawful authority The conduct constitutes identity theft under federal law Continued prosecution, collection activity, or any attempt to proceed with the scheduled sale constitutes knowing continuation of identity theft and creates additional statutory exposure under 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( false representation ), 15 U.S.C. 1692f ( unfair practices ), and 18 U.S.C. 1341 ( mail fraud ). 
This is not a request for compliance. It is a record of completed criminal conduct with notice fixed. 
NOTICE REGARDING POWER OF ATTORNEY XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( d ) imposes liability on any person or entity that refuses to honor, interferes with, or obstructs a valid power of attorney. A valid Limited Power of Attorney executed XX/XX/XXXX is on file and governs all matters relating to this complaint and the referenced foreclosure action. 
Accordingly, all communications regarding this matter must be directed exclusively to the undersigned as Attorney-in-Fact via email at XXXX or through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 's complaint portal so that a proper electronic record may be maintained. 
Any direct communication with XXXX XXXX XXXX after receipt of this record constitutes interference with fiduciary authority, establishes knowing violation of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( d ), and will be treated as affirmative evidence of obstruction, triggering immediate commercial remedies and enforcement actions without further notice. 
ASSIGNMENT AND TRANSFER PROHIBITION Any sale, assignment, or transfer of this account or the underlying alleged obligation to a third-party debt collector, debt buyer, or successor counsel following receipt of this record will be treated as retaliatory escalation. The decision to assign a disputed account after receiving documented notice of identity theftrather than investigate and resolve the disputeis itself an adverse action. 
This is a pattern the industry relies upon : when a consumer or their representative pushes back, the original actor attempts to escape liability by transferring the matter to another entity. That conduct, post-notice, is now documented retaliation. 
Furthermore, any assignee, transferee, successor counsel, or debt collector who subsequently attempts to prosecute, collect, or foreclose on this account is hereby placed on constructive notice that : The account has been the subject of a formal record of identity theft under 18 U.S.C. 1028 ( a ) ( 7 ) The foreclosure sale notice was issued by a non-existent entity The original actors received actual notice and continued prosecution despite documented capacity failure All claims and defenses travel with the account under applicable assignment law Any collection or foreclosure attempt constitutes violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( false representation ), 15 U.S.C. 1692f ( unfair practices ), and continuation of identity theft under 18 U.S.C. 1028 ( a ) ( 7 ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX can not escape liability by transferring this matter. Assignment after notice creates two defendants, not zero.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation