Consumer complaint received 2024-05-21 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Paying off the loan
Company: McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
The complainant applied for credit, and subsequently entered a debt finance contract with XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  for the purchase of real property in XXXX XXXX, Georgia on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  claims to have sold the mortgage to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX claims to have hired XXXX XXXX XXXX ( dba XXXX XXXX XXXX ) to service the loan. XXXX XXXX XXXX then involved McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce LLC in their attempt to foreclose the property. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, the complainant endured undue influence from the Notary Public during the closing procedures when she prevented the complainant from restricting her indorsement on the mortgage chattels. The complainant, being the true owner and holder of the chattels including the promissory note, never intended to gift the note or any of the chattels to XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, or McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce LLC and only intended for them to hold the chattels on special deposit. She intended to deposit the promissory note into her own account, and never authorized the defendants to deposit the note into their account. The promissory note was the property that the complainant intended to pledge as collateral for the mortgage, not her real estate property. The complainant only granted the alleged owner and servicer a security interest in the promissory note in exchange for valuable consideration, which has still not been given to the complainant as of the filing of this complaint. The complainant never intended to grant legal title in any of her property to any of the parties previously mentioned, including McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce LLC. The Purchase Money Security Deed was solely intended to secure the complainants repayment of the mortgage, which she tendered on XX/XX/XXXX. Section 27 of the Security Deed titled Release clearly states that : Upon payment of all sums secured by this Security Instrument, Lender will cancel this Security Instrument. The complainant has asked all involved opposing parties to provide a full accounting for her account multiple times via written request, the initial request sent via United States Postal Service Certified Mail on XX/XX/XXXX, and every time they have either refused the request or only provided partial accounting. On XX/XX/XXXX, all involved opposing parties were served a Deed of Dissolution of Trust discharging them of their Trustee capacity via United States Postal Service Registered Mail to dissolve the trust that was created by the complainant when she indorsed the Security Deed. The complainant also served a Revocation of Power of Attorney and Security Interest to all involved opposing parties on XX/XX/XXXX, which stripped them of their Power of Attorney and agent-in fact authorities and removed their right to a Power of Sale of the real property of subject. The complainant tendered three ( 3 ) special deposits with Notice of Equitable Redemption via United States Postal Service Registered Mail to settle her account, first to the Chief Financial Officer of XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, and twice to the Indenture Trustee of XXXX XXXX XXXX, which is XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. on XX/XX/XXXX. These three special deposits along with the promissory note deposited on XX/XX/XXXX, prove that the complainant has tendered XXXX ( XXXX ) different payments to the defendants to settle the alleged debt. The complainant obtained a Forensic Mortgage Securitization Audit which provided XXXX XXXX data proving that not only was her mortgage account already settled and repaid to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, but that they have also converted and securitized the complainants mortgage chattels and are currently trading them on stock exchange markets and retaining all the profits. The records of accounting provided by the defendants in no way match the Forensic Mortgage Securitization Audit data. The complainant received a copy of the promissory note with the allonge from McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce LLC on XX/XX/XXXX, and the note does not contain a special indorsement signifying the assignment of the mortgage from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. As of the filing of this complaint, neither McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce LLC or any other party previously mentioned in this complaint has provided the complainant with a copy of the promissory note that identifies them as title holders with any valid claim, right or interest in the promissory note or the real property of subject. 
OFFENSES XXXX. All involved opposing parties trespassed the complainants mortgage chattels when they wrongfully took possession without her consent and deprived her of her property. XXXX. All involved opposing parties materially altered the complainants mortgage chattels by applying their own indorsements without her consent. 3. All involved opposing parties converted the mortgage chattels for their own use without the consent of the complainant. 4. All involved opposing parties have committed multiple acts of breach of trust, including : A. Breach of contract when they failed to provide valuable consideration to the complainant after she granted them a security interest in her promissory note. B. Dereliction of fiduciary duties to apply the payments tendered by the complainant to settle their ledger and cancel the security instrument after receiving notice to do so. C. Refusal to vacate Trustee office after trust was dissolved and complainant relieved them of their responsibility. D. Refusal to provide a full accounting for the complainant 's account to show what disposition they have made of the trust funds, money, and other property in their possession. E. Clogging the complainants right to redeem the mortgage on several different occasions. 5. All involved opposing parties retain wrongful possession of the land, rights, titles, interests, and property after receiving full payment from the complainant to settle the account. 6. All involved opposing parties are violating the complainants order revoking their security interest and Power of Attorney/Power of Sale privileges . 7. All involved opposing parties have not proven their authority to foreclose on the complainants property by way of Power of Attorney granted by either the alleged owner or servicer of the mortgage, which displays they also do not have any de jure authority to foreclose on the complainants property. 8. All involved opposing parties have provided no proof that they have a right, title, or interest in the complainant 's real property by way of an assignment of the note to them from the alleged originator of the note. The complainant is already pursuing legal action against XXXX XXXX XXXX and McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce LLC, and demands they provide the documents requested in this complaint immediately and cancel the auction sale of the complainant 's property scheduled for XX/XX/XXXX, before they cause irreparable harm to the complainant 's estate and commit fraudulent and injurious acts against the complainant.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation