Consumer complaint received 2025-01-07 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Manufactured home loan
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Loan sold or transferred to another company
Company: Ocwen Financial Corporation
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX alleges that on or about XX/XX/XXXX, this petitioner attained a mortgage refinance and deemed that her " family inherited land '' was included as collateral security for a home loan ( XXXX XXXX ). This petitioner had received an original Satisfaction of Mortgage on the property located at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX in XXXX that was already filed with the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 

On or about XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX initiated the wrongful foreclosure by falsely asserting that it was the party to which the debt was owed as the owner of the note. Operating as a mortgage loan servicing and securitization company, it regularly engages in the servicing of mortgages, including foreclosures, throughout the State of Florida. 

U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for the XXXX Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates ( XXXX  XXXX ), organized and existing under the laws of the United States as Trustee, constitutes and appoints XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Servicer XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, Petitioner was ordered to appear at XXXX Mediation Hearing to address the debt allegation in controversy by conference call with Mortgage loan specialists representatives from XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX before XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Notice of the lack of evidence of debt was verbally restated and request for fact-findings were again made and ordered to be provided and forwarded to this petitioner. Moreover, US Bank TrusteesXXXX XXXX were not in attendance as the Plaintiff party bringing forth the suit at the Mediation Hearing/conference... 

At Mediation conference, acknowledgement by acquiescence was noted to the unrebutted Affidavit filed by the Petitioner ( case # XXXX ), and the uncertainty response status to the inquiries by the Plaintiff ( XXXX ) representatives were noted to reveal that : XXXX ) they werent aware of any notifications by process of service, XXXX ) they were uncertain about XXXX Exemption status, and XXXX ) they didnt understand the meaning of the term securitization. Consequently, a confirmative response regarding the absence of proof to a verification of mortgage request had previously been given by a XXXX XXXX XXXX representative on or about XXXX of XXXX, and a request for Satisfaction of Mortgage was made known... 

Petitioner raised the issue regarding the tax lien on the property had been resolved and a " Satisfaction of Tax Lien '' was filed with the XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX, Florida, on XX/XX/XXXX, as evidenced by the recorded document [ Instrument # XXXX ]. 

Despite the filed Satisfaction of Tax Lien, the Plaintiff ( s ) demonstrated deliberate indifference, willful neglect, denied proof of claim, and relied solely on a reconstructed note ' as a sworn affidavit while bypassing the judicial process. The XXXX proceeded to foreclose against the XXXX 's property without legal basis or due process, and the property is alleged to be " Sold '' at auctioned XXXX XXXX XXXX  on XX/XX/XXXX. 

To date, no notice of assignment or of acknowledgement has been presented to the Petitioner. However, XXXX XXXX Mortgage Loan Serving continues to solicit for payment plan re-establishment. 

Plaintiff ( s ) failed to notify Petitioner that the original mortgage note had been lost, despite numerous requests, nor did Plaintiff ( s ) properly disclose that they relied on a reconstructed note ' affidavit to proceed with the foreclosure action. This failure to disclose crucial information in a contractual partnership deprived Petitioner of the opportunity to challenge the validity of the foreclosure with deliberate indifference, as well as confiscated her share of the profit ( s ) acquired through the extension of credits.

As a result, the Plaintiff ( s ) proceeded to foreclosure auction despite having knowledge that the promissory note was properly tendered to the local Federal Reserve agent as required by XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, the XX/XX/XXXX Act XXXX, which specifically states that the promissory note when tendered to the local Federal Reserve agent constitutes delivery of collateral and security, placing the obligation on the local Federal Reserve agent and the Federal Reserve. According to their claim, if true, would suggest that the burden of proof would fall upon the financial institution to prove that the Nonjudicial Foreclosure Act applies instead of the Act of XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  and the Act of XX/XX/XXXX XXXX. The tender of collateral security was accepted and not timely refused which equates to payment under commercial law and the law of contracts. 

This stressful experience has given way to severe emotional anguish, XXXX, undue & extensive research, humiliation by deprivation of protected rights, and an auction sale which was egregious, unlawful and void. My faith in the process and system is shaken to the core from which I believe will have prolonged and lasting effects that I may never recover.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation