Consumer complaint received 2015-05-19 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure — 
Company: M&T BANK CORPORATION
State: WA

Complaint narrative:
Good Morning All, I wish to have these very important & relevant questions answered by the Plaintiff, Wilmington Trust, the entity claiming to be the holder of my mortgage note that was allegedly sold on the secondary market XX/XX/XXXX by the servicer, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX ( loan originator as well ). The Plaintiff in its sole capacity claims the mortgage was sold into the deal XXXX at some point between XX/XX/XXXX-XX/XX/XXXX. Your office retains a copy of the note with endorsements. Please note that XXXX did not exist any longer in XX/XX/XXXX/XX/XX/XXXX for failure to file annual returns with Secretary State of WA. This means that first endorsement on the note was fraudulent in nature as the entity had DIED, but purports to be assigned to a trust well into the future before its creation. The same holds true for the XXXX endorsement. I see nothing that indicates that these endorsements reference Successor By Merger! That is just the tip of the iceberg. There is so much more to discuss. So we have an entity claiming they have legal standing to foreclose as they claim they are holder of the note. The agreements between themselves are ridiculous & have no merits for the homeowner to legitimately track their COT ( Chain of Title ) at the recorders office. They simply do not match! They can fabricate their agreements at anytime amongst themselves which allows for further deceptive fraud against the homeowners ( FYI XXXX and XXXX ). My case is not going to be used to set favorable precedence for any bank entity to help them steal other homes in the judicial arena in the state of Washington. I will absolutely MAKE SURE this WILL NOT happen. I am a responsible individual and also a steward of the state and the public should be aware of various facts that surround this case so they understand what is at stake. To not know would otherwise be harmful to the public. IF ONLY THEY REALLY KNEW! I wish to know the trust balance specifically related to my property. I wish to have a NOD stating amount owed and to whom I am actually in default to. Now what would be the reason why a valid and legal NOD would not be given to me? Can anyone guess? I just want to compare the balance in the trust to what the complaint indicates. Simple, right? Furthermore, I wish to know how the Servicer ( XXXX XXXX who claimed they sold all their rights & interest XX/XX/XXXX ) continues to make assignments on behalf of themselves and XXXX, well after the trust date closed? As your own XXXX XXXX said to me : How did the entity get the loan out of the trust to make further assignments after that date? My response to that is : PERHAPS they are double and triple dipping. Fraud on the homeowner, fraud on the investors, SEC violations! PERHAPS, JUST PERHAPS the asset never really left XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. What do you think XXXX and XXXX. I am onto all possibilities and realities to be proven in a court of law of course. BUT, I am not the Plaintiff that bares the burden of proof. Does n't mean I can not disprove what WT states. Let us not forget about the XXXX Manual ( the attorneys manual for foreclosures ). Last, it is quite obvious that XXXX XXXX is behind it all and I have felt this. They need to show me what they did with approximately {$150000.00} in payments made direct to them after my XX/XX/XXXX Chapter XXXX BK DISCHARGE, where mortgage was not re-affirmed, but yet I, XXXX . Homeowner exercised GOOD FAITH in paying them as I have always INTENDED on keeping my family home in which my husband himself built and we used some of our own money. Now comes the NPV issue. So we have a Trustee for a Trust claiming I owe X amount of dollars. But yet they can not even provide me a NOD to match the amount & entity on their complaint? WHY NOT? What 's it going to hurt? Could the Plaintiff state the actual amount owed to the Senior Beneficiary? In this case, it appears to be investors for a trust.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation