Consumer complaint received 2026-05-20 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Mortgage debt
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: Pluese, Becker & Saltzman, LLC
State: NJ

Complaint narrative:
Pluese , Becker & Saltzman , LLC repeatedly participated in debt collection, foreclosure enforcement, and standing certifications relating to an alleged mortgage debt originally asserted in the XXXX foreclosure action, XXXX, and related bankruptcy proceedings. The firm, including attorney XXXX XXXX, relied upon and certified instruments allegedly transferring the mortgage debt and enforcement authority to XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. Those same instruments including the Assignment of Mortgage and related XXXX documentation have since become the subject of substantial disputes concerning authenticity, chain of title, notarization, and lawful transfer authority. Beginning in XXXX and continuing through the present, information obtained through litigation, appellate proceedings, government agency responses, document demands, and regulatory inquiries revealed that key notarization records and notary journals associated with the instruments relied upon in the XXXX foreclosure proceedings could not be verified or produced. These issues concern instruments used to establish standing, possession, ownership, and authority to collect and foreclose. Despite repeated formal notice and document demands directed to Pluese, Becker & Saltzman beginning no later than XX/XX/XXXX, neither the firm nor successor counsel produced : authenticated chain-of-custody documentation ; independently verifiable transfer records ; accounting establishing lawful acquisition of the alleged debt ; MERS authority records ; or authenticated evidence establishing lawful possession and holder status. Instead, the same disputed instruments and standing assertions continued to be relied upon across : foreclosure proceedings ; appellate proceedings ; bankruptcy-related proceedings ; debt collection activity ; and continuing foreclosure enforcement efforts. During a XX/XX/XXXX hearing in XXXX, attorney XXXX XXXX personally appeared and continued defending the same Assignment, XXXX, and standing framework after having already received prior preservation demands and formal notice regarding the disputed instruments and missing authentication records. At that same hearing, successor counsel XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX simultaneously continued defending and relying upon the same standing assertions and enforcement authority in the later foreclosure proceedings. The result is continuing coordinated reliance by successive law firms upon instruments and standing assertions that remain materially disputed and incapable of independent evidentiary verification. The law firms continued foreclosure enforcement and debt collection activity despite : unresolved ownership and standing disputes ; unresolved authentication issues; missing notarial verification records ; active appellate proceedings challenging standing and possession ; CFPB proceedings concerning ownership substantiation ; and pending federal litigation involving the same asserted enforcement authority. The firms repeatedly acted in a debt collection capacity while continuing to assert authority to collect and enforce the alleged debt despite unresolved and repeatedly noticed verification deficiencies. I requested documentation establishing lawful ownership and authority to collect the alleged debt, including : complete assignment and transfer history ; proof of possession or holder status ; chain-of-custody records ; authentication records relating to the Assignment and XXXX ; and documentation establishing lawful transfer of enforcement rights. The requested documentation was not provided.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation