Consumer complaint received 2016-09-02 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Other mortgage
Issue: Loan servicing, payments, escrow account — 
Company: M&T BANK CORPORATION
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
Beginning XXXX, 2009, a cadre of financial institutions have improperly posed as the creditor, i.e. the party to whom the mortgage debt is owed, in connection with debt encumbering real property of my estate. After years of litigation, and battling absurd arguments such as, " we can enforce the debt even if we stole it, it 's a bearer instrument under UCC 3, '' it is clear that none of the financial institutions own or have a right to enforce the debt instruments. The XXXX has now finally determined that the Note at issue is not negotiable instrument, and therefore not subject to UCC 3, and thus the institutions can not enforce the debt, " even if they stole it. '' After changing the identify of the creditor numerous times, the institutions most recently asserted the owner of the debt is, " XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as Trustee for XXXX XXXX, asserts the right to enforce the Note as the owner of a bearer instrument, '' and then when I proved that was an impossibility, the institutions pivoted to assert the exact opposite, " XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as Trustee for XXXX XXXX agrees it is not the owner of the Note. '' I have been forced to litigate the institutions ' moving target assertions for over XXXX years. The servicing institutions involved ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX and XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ), assert they are attempting to enforce the debt on behalf of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as Indenture Trustee for XXXX XXXX ( BONYM ), with XXXX asserting it is attempting to collect the debt on behalf of " XXXX certificate holders '' of XXXX XXXX. However during their deposition testimony, XXXX admitted it has no idea who the XXXX certificate holders are or how they are paid. Contradicting this testimony, are the documents filed with the SEC in connection with XXXX establishing that the indenture trustee is to certify with its signature, each certificate issued, and is responsible for paying the certificate holders. If XXXX does not know who the certificate holders are then they are not collecting payments from me on behalf of the certificate holders of XXXX XXXX. Finally, during the recent summary adjudication proceedings, the servicing institutions and XXXX now assert that Wilmington Trust Corporation is the owner of the instruments as the Owner Trustee of XXXX XXXX ( Wilmington ). However Wilmington and its key executives are under criminal indictment for their conduct in connection with mortgage backed securities and did not assert a claim against my estate. Further, the documents filed with the SEC in connection with XXXX XXXX establish that the owner trustee, Wilmington, is the only party that can engage in litigation in connection with assets of the trust. Its clear that Wilmington, did not, and is not asserting a claim against my estate, that SLS is improperly using the name XXXX XXXX as cover to fraudulently assert a claim against my estate. Defendant 's counsel in the matter, has improperly asserted it is representing all the Defendants in the matter, when their actual client is SLS, in order to collect fees and keep covered the issue that the certificate holders of XXXX XXXX are owed no amounts from me. As this agency is aware, when XXXX XXXX was the servicing agent their conduct was particularly egregious as summarized in the attached communication from me to XXXX XXXX. After the CFPB and FTS consent judgment was issued, XXXX XXXX immediately became XXXX for obvious reasons but continues its deplorable conduct in my case. The overall issue is set out in my attached third amended complaint, which will have to be amended once again now that XXXX 's misrepresentations of ownership were revealed during the summary adjudication proceedings.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation