Consumer complaint received 2026-01-04 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — Foreclosure
Company: Atlanticus Services Corporation
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint against XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( formerly XXXX XXXX ), a law firm specializing in private lending services, for their central role in a predatory loan originated in XX/XX/XXXX on my primary residence at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, and their ongoing bias as foreclosure trustee. XXXX XXXX drafted the loan documents ( evidenced by their trademark appearing in most docs ), endorsed nondisclosure and collusion to disguise what was effectively a consumer loan as a " business purpose '' loan, and now unfairly rejects borrower protections in foreclosure proceedings. This violates federal consumer protection laws, including the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ), Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA ), and prohibitions on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices ( UDAAP ) under the Consumer Financial Protection Act ( XXXX ). The loan amount was {$330000.00}, structured as a second trust deed, and has led to a wrongful nonjudicial foreclosure where XXXX XXXX rejected my valid XXXX XXXX postponement submission without explanation or opportunity to cure. 

Timeline and Key Violations : Disguised Consumer Loan as Business Purpose ( Mortgage Fraud and Deceptive Practices ) : The loan was for personal/consumer use ( refinancing my primary residence held in the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ) but disguised as a " business purpose '' loan to a corporation ( XXXX, a California Corporation XXXX XXXX evade consumer safeguards like TILA/RESPA disclosures, usury XXXX, and lower fees. This allowed higher interest rates and origination fees ( e.g., {$32000.00} origination charge split between lenders ). XXXX XXXX blessed this by drafting the docs and facilitating the structure without explaining consequences, violating TILA ( 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. ) and UDAAP ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ).

Evidence : The property transfer from trust to corporation was done solely for this loan, without my prior authorization or understanding. Corporate minutes were signed in bulk on XX/XX/XXXX, but I did not create them or authorize anyone to create them for methe pre-existing corporation was not intended for this use. 

Escrow officer XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) admitted in emails ( attached ) that she created amendments ( e.g., page XXXX listing lenders with identical XXXX No. XXXX ) without checking licenses or raising red flags, stating she closes if docs " match '' and doesn't verify compliance. This shared licensing raises questions under California XXXX XXXX ( entity-specific requirements ), and XXXX XXXX , as drafter, failed to flag or disclose it. 

Nondisclosure and Bulk Signing Without Informed Consent ( TILA/RESPA Violations ) : All documents were presented en masse for signature in XXXX sitting on XX/XX/XXXX, without adequate time for review or discussion. No one from XXXX XXXX 's document department, escrow, or loan officer XXXX XXXX explained the implications of the ownership change ( from family trust to corporation ), including detriments like loss of homestead exemption, mortgage interest deduction, capital gains exclusion ( $ XXXX $ XXXX under IRC XXXX ), higher taxes, or potential due-on-sale trigger ( XXXX. Code XXXX ). The notary ( XXXX XXXX ) never explained anything, left no copies, and the loan funded immediately with no loan officer present. This violates TILA 's requirement for clear disclosures ( 15 U.S.C. 1638 ) and RESPA 's good-faith estimate rules ( 12 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. ). 

Evidence : XXXX 's emails ( attached ) claim the transfer " was agreed upon between you and the lender '' but provide no supporting documentation ( e.g., signed amendments, emails, or instructions showing my consent ). She states " I do not check the lenders license number '' and " in order for us to proceed with the loan the borrowers vesting has to match the Deed of Trust, '' ignoring obvious compliance issues. XXXX has a XXXX history of disclosure failures ( XXXX XXXX XXXX for bankruptcy/termination nondisclosures ; XXXX XXXX application withdrawal ), further evidencing predatory practices. 

Biased Foreclosure Trustee Actions ( UDAAP and Debt Collection Violations ) : XXXX XXXX, acting as foreclosure trustee despite drafting the loan docs, rejected my XXXX XXXX submission ( mandatory postponement for valid listing/purchase agreement under Civ. Code XXXX ( XXXX ), effective XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) as " defective '' without explanation, specifics, or cure opportunity. 

This manifested bias favors the lender ( their client ) and frustrates borrower protections, violating XXXX by abusing their dual role. 
Evidence : XXXX 's institutional bias is clear from their website ( lender-exclusive services like enforcement and wrongful foreclosure defense ; no borrower focus ) and a XX/XX/XXXX XXXX review alleging unethical conduct, conflicts, and lack of transparency by a XXXX attorneymirroring my experience. Their XXXX rebrand from XXXX XXXX continues this lender " fortified protection. '' Collusion for Higher Fees and Usury Evasion ( XXXX ) : The disguise allowed excessive fees ( e.g., {$32000.00} origination, split between co-lenders with shared license ) and higher rates, evading usury limits. XXXX XXXX had the duty to stop this and explain consequences but endorsed the collusion, as evidenced in XXXX ( attached ) and their trademark in docs. 
Evidence : XXXX 's emails confirm escrow 's complicity ( no alarms raised, amendments created without verification ). This concerted effort by all parties ( lenders, XXXX, escrow, XXXX ) to hide implications for profit violates XXXX 's prohibition on abusive practices. 


Impact on Me : I've suffered financial harm ( higher fees/rates, re-assessment taxes ) and stress from wrongful foreclosure threats. The lack of disclosure led to irreparable decisions like the trust-to-corp transfer, losing personal protections.

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