Consumer complaint received 2016-11-21 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure — 
Company: McCarthy & Holthus, LLP
State: AZ

Complaint narrative:
. ) The reason for this complaint is that McCarthy Holthus & XXXX, P.C., all XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX claim to have legal title of the loan, but can not /will not provide documents to support this position. It is unfair and deceptive for these entities to refuse to provide this basic documentation. Without it, my client is unable to make informed decisions about his debt and negotiate with the true owner of it. 

As part of my process, I review the chain of title for the loan documents. During this time I reviewed the Note and Deed of Trust dated XX/XX/XXXX and the Notice of Trustee 's Sale dated XXXX, the assignment dated XX/XX/XXXX and the request for restraining order from XX/XX/XXXX, ( attached as Exhibit XXXX ) and noticed something strange. The assignment was from XXXX as Attorney-in-Fact for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to XXXX, with POA signing for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as its attorney in fact. However, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was shut down by the FDIC in XXXX, FOUR years prior to XX/XX/XXXX, the date of the assignment. See the documents attached as exhibit XXXX. 

Since a person can not act as an attorney in fact for a company that no longer exists, I was surprised to see someone signing as an agent for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, when XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX had been shut down for so long. I called on McCarthy Holthus and asked for an explanation, but McCarthy Holthus reps failed to give me any sort of reasonable explanation. 

McCarthy Holthus also represents that although a Foreclosure date was set in XXXX, the Note was NEVER accelerated. I do n't understand that either. 

I also would like to point out that I went directly to XXXX and they responded with the fact that they are NOT the holders of the Note or the " owners '' of this loan and have nothing to do with the foreclosure attempts and they DID NOT hire McCarthy Holthus to represent them. 

McCarthy Holthus ' response is unfair because it significantly harms my client 's ability to refinance or renegotiate his debt in the form of a modification if he can not even identify which entity he should be speaking with. McCarthy Holthus ' has or should have this information, but simply will not provide it. Further, it is against public policy and common sense that McCarthy Holthus ' should try to act as a legally entitled holder of the loan after written communications with XXXX claiming to NOT be the holder, but McCarthy Holthus ' refusal to provide even basic, simple documentation to prove their position is terribly frustrating. 

McCarthy Holthus ' actions are deceptive because it appears that XXXX received a valid assignment from a company that no longer existed at the time of the assignment. Without special knowledge about the mortgage and banking industry, the average reasonable consumer would easily be misled to assume that the assignment was valid and XXXX was the true owner of the debt. This is a material deception because it is misleads the consumer into negotiating and paying the wrong party for the debt.

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