Old Republic National Title Holding Co. CFPB Complaints

Back to Dashboard
2000 Latest Complaints
Date Received Timely Response Product Issue State / Zip Submitted Via Tags
06/30/2020 Yes
  • Debt collection
  • Mortgage debt
  • Attempts to collect debt not owed
  • Debt was result of identity theft
  • IL
  • 606XX
Web Servicemember
Dear CFPB, Senate, Illinois Supreme Court, IL Attorney General, All Judges in Federal and State Court, Please find my complaint against Old Republic Title and The Florida Fund for their refusal to provide me a compensation under Title Insurance Policy XXXX for proerty located XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX IL XXXX, due to fatally defective Title and total loss of the property because of XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX ( formerly XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) fraud, fraudulent transfers, conspiracy to defraud ; unjust enrichment, theft of the property and money ; identity theft and other crimes. Request for compensation under Title Policy issued by XXXX XXXX XXXX and underwritten by XXXX XXXX XXXXOld Republic Title in the amount {$170000.00} for stolen from me property. On XX/XX/XXXX I entered into a contract with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( now XXXX XXXX ) which was mislabeled as a loan ; and signed a Promissory Note and Mortgage. XXXX purportedly funded my home purchase. I never questioned where money came from since I reasonably believed that I am entering into a legitimate transaction and protected by the law. While I wanted and was tricked to believe that I purchase a loan that is what I thought I received, I was unaware of any larger transaction triggered by my signature. Having signed the documents that originated the disclosed transaction, under judicial doctrine, presumably constitutes a loan agreement. So the transaction was presumptively a loan of money that needed to be repaid upon the terms set forth in the note. In fact, I was lured into a totally different transaction, not the loan, because material information was withheld from me, such as : The prime mover in the transaction was XXXX XXXX running a securitizations scheme, the existence of which was concealed and unknown to me. The goal was to create the appearance of facially valid loan documents and transfers when no such transfer had legally occurred. The named originator XXXX never did and would not have made any loan because it had no money to make the loan and because it had no interest in any business plan based upon the receipt of principal and interest. The contractual intent of the investment bank was to secure my signature for the sole purpose of triggering issuance and trading of unregulated securities ( securitization ). The concealed contractual intent of XXXX XXXX was to retain no residual interest, liability or obligation in connection with the existence, administration, collection, servicing or enforcement of any homeowner obligation created by the transaction origination documents. The issuance, sale and trading of unregulated securities were conditions precedent and conditions subsequent to the payment to me money mislabeled as loan. This payment was never intended by XXXX XXXX as a loan and after the conclusion of the entire transaction involving my signature, name, reputation and property there was no loan on the books of any company ( i.e. there was no asset receivable either specific or generic that included the subject homeowner transaction. Thus, there was no meeting of the minds because XXXX XXXX and all of its intermediaries and conduits concealed the totality of the transaction from the me, who was paid for my signature in order to trigger enormous profits greatly exceeding the entire transaction, or about 184 times more per {$1.00} paid to me as a loan Since there was a failure of mutual contractual intent, and the failure was caused by circumvention of lender regulations and laws, the contract must be construed under quasi contract doctrine or quantum meruit. I was never given an opportunity to assess the transaction in the light of the enormous undisclosed profits and in the light of XXXX XXXX being the actual prime actor. The securitization scheme generated enormous revenues such that convicted felons and food delivery people with no knowledge of the financial products other than a script provided to them by the investment banks bank through intermediaries were hired to sell these defective financial products and earn hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These profits didnt come from what they had falsely labelled as a loan. And if it came from something else, that wasnt disclosed to me. And that means that I was tricked into a contract that I knew nothing about. XXXX XXXX, who along with XXXX. XXXX XXXX and his XXXX/XXXX XXXX were the only real parties, not only received enormous profits from trading my securitized identity on the open market ( to which I am entitled royalties under Quantum Meriut at least 20 % ) but also stole my property with forged documents filed by XXXX XXXX/XXXX acting on behalf of fictitious and non-existing parties, which resulted in total loss of my property, monetary damages and extreme emotional distress. On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX acting as non-existing XXXX XXXX Trust and a fake " Trustee '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( a non-existing corporation ) filed forged assignment based on robo-stamped XXXX XXXX XXXX ( now controller at XXXX ), signature. This Assignment was prepared by purportedly XXXX who never had any legal rights to transfer any debt since XXXX never owned it, into a fake entity XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX hired lawyers from XXXX XXXX XXXX submitted false statements and forged documents to the Court and illegally obtained possession of my property which XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX sold to third parties under glimpse of " Board of Directors '' for XXXX XXXX. As the result, I suffered severe damages while the new buyer is in possession of stolen from me property which I demand to return back to me, along with payments from XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX ( former XXXX ) and XXXX XXXX ( former XXXX ), plus 20 % of royalties from trades, the amount no less than {$10.00} XXXX XXXX never was a lender. It was a sham conduit for XXXX XXXX who received a line of credit from XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) which was funded from XXXX pool of money collected from investors whom XXXX sold UNSECURED promises to pay back with interest, aka table funding, illegal in XXXX. See XXXX Prospectus which said : We may issue from time to time senior or subordinated debt securities. Neither the senior debt securities nor the subordinated debt securities will be secured by any of our property or assets or property or assets of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX or its subsidiaries. Thus, by owning a debt security, you are one of our unsecured creditors. So, how UNSECURED creditors who never had any connections with homeowners can demand their homes as a repayment of some non-existing debt which borrowers never owed to XXXX or XXXX even hypothetically? Moreover, illegally foreclose the crime victims ( borrowers ) after these Investors received a full benefit they bargained for some returns from XXXX XXXX plus {$3.00} XXXX from a Settlement with XXXX XXXX where XXXX XXXX XXXX released ALL interest in any XXXX XXXX. Thus, non-existing debt was settled in XXXX. But Judges acting unlawful and corrupt, confiscated millions of homes from homeowners to purportedly re-pay investors XXXX XXXX XXXX who already were paid and dropped any claims after the Settlement with GS, when XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX initiated their illegal foreclosures mill, in violation of s to Cease and Desist, orders actively promoting a myth that foreclosures are conducted by investors XXXX XXXX XXXX. According to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX purchased from XXXX XXXX over {$11.00} XXXX in residential mortgage-backed securities ( the GSE Certificates ) issued in connection with 40 securitizations for which XXXX served as sponsor, depositor, and/or lead underwriter. It included Trust XXXX XXXX. The trick was none of these securities were backed by any mortgages because residential debt is never sold. It is a myth created by XXXX XXXX, one of main originators of this fraudulent scheme. It was a purely unsecured debt which was never pooled in any Trust ; and never regulated by any authorities ( see Prospectus ) The mortgage was not a debt but a one-time payment to me from XXXX for very valuable financial services as an Initial Issuer of Promissory Note and Mortgage, which are a Quasi Contract and Quantum Meruit. This payment was funded by XXXX from their table funding pool, illegal in California, who used XXXX as a camouflage for other parties. XXXX v. XXXX XXXX said : The Registration Statements contained statements about the characteristics and credit quality of the mortgage loans underlying the Securitizations and the origination and underwriting practices used to make and approve the loans. Such statements were material to a The term Registration Statement, as used herein, incorporates the Shelf Registration Statement, the Prospectus and the Prospectus Supplement for each referenced Securitization, except where otherwise indicated reasonable investors decision to invest in mortgage-backed securities by purchasing the Certificates. Unbeknownst to XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, these statements were materially false, as significant percentages of the underlying mortgage loans were not originated in accordance with the represented underwriting standards and origination practices, and had materially poorer credit quality than was represented in the Registration Statements. The loans underlying the Certificates were acquired by the sponsor for each Securitization from non-party mortgage originators. The originators principally responsible for the loans underlying the Certificates were XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, NC XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Again, the trick was and intended by XXXX XXXX that NONE of these originators actually originated of funded any mortgages, no need to say ever sold any mortgages to XXXX XXXX or anyone else. They merely acted as sham conduits to cover for involvement of the real parties XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. According to XXXX v. XXXX XXXX, In residential mortgage-backed securitizations, the cash-producing financial assets are residential mortgage loans. This is a lie. XXXX XXXX never relied on income from loans. The cash-producing assets were derivatives sold by XXXX in astronomic proportions. Based on most recent OCC Report XXXX XXXX XXXX US has {$220000.00} XXXX in assets and {>= $1,000,000} XXXX in derivatives. In other words, about 184 times more profits from every {$1.00} XXXX pay to the borrower for their signature on Promissory Note which borrower has to return back to XXXX with interest as a loan. My modest $ XXXX loan via XXXX produced whopping XXXX for XXXX XXXX, plus a bailout plus tax-free property and proceeds from sale. XXXX v. XXXX XXXX further said : A mortgage servicer is necessary to manage the collection of proceeds from the mortgage loans. The servicer is responsible for collecting homeowners mortgage loan payments, which the servicer remits to the trustee after deducting a monthly servicing fee. The servicers duties include making collection efforts on delinquent loans, initiating foreclosure proceedings, and determining when to charge off a loan by writing down its balance. The servicer is required to report key information about the loans to the trustee. The trustee ( or trust administrator ) administers the trusts funds and delivers payments due each month on the certificates to the investors. This is another smoke and mirrors created by XXXX XXXX and XXXX. XXXX to defraud borrowers and investors. The only party who serviced ( aka collected payments from borrowers to distribute to XXXX, declare defaults on already defaulted loans and initiate foreclosures on behalf of fake Trustees and Servicers is XXXX. XXXX, owner of XXXX XXXXt. XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX and Other Companies are Making False Claims as Servicers : XXXX XXXX, the king of fabricated documents is behind 62 % of all servicing records. Companies claiming to be servicers are not servicers although they perform some servicing functions as clients of XXXX XXXX. Anyone who knows about foreclosure litigation and securitization of residential debt knows that the only way the banks could succeed is if they had a central repository and central command center from which all documents were fabricated and all instructions were issued. For nearly all loans the central command was XXXX XXXX XXXX, aided by XXXX. While XXXX is technically defunct and XXXX XXXX went to jail taking one for the team, the functions of XXXX remained the same. XXXX changed its name to XXXX XXXX and in a PR coup transformed itself into the publisher of what is largely viewed as comprehensive data on mortgage lending and foreclosures. Hence it went from the purveyor of false, fraudulent, forged documentation to the purveyor of data perceived as reliable and thence became a trusted source whose data is considered worthy of legal presumptions. XXXX at XXXX XXXX include data processing on virtually all residential loans subject to claims of securitization many of which are represented by data on the XXXX. Platform which is a workaround to hide separate split transfers of the debt, the note and the mortgage or deed of trust. The systems on XXXX XXXX are designed for the express purpose of presenting consistent data in foreclosure claims. As such it also enables the rotation of apparent servicers, none of whom perform bookkeeping functions even if some of them interact with borrowers as if they were actually the servicers. The rotation of servicers comes with the false representation and illusion of boarding in which the process is falsely represented as meaning that the new servicer inspected, audited, reviewed and input the data into their own system. None of that occurred. Instead the new servicer merely gained access to the same XXXX XXXX as the last servicer with a new login and password. All evidence shows that the functions for fabricated, forging and robosigning documents continue to be performed under the direction of XXXX XXXX which receives all instructions from various investment banks who have each started their own securitization scheme masking apparent trades in the secondary market for loans and trades in the shadow banking market where private contracts are regularly traded without any securities regulation. Far from dropping their connection with XXXX/XXXX the major banks have completely embraced this central repository of all loan data, all of which is subject to manual and algorithmic manipulation to suit the needs of the banks ; thus they produce a report that creates the illusion of credibility, reliability and even independence even though none of those things are true. XXXX XXXX is not mentioned in any transactions in part because of its prior record of criminal conduct. There is nothing like an admission that can change the course of thinking by a judge. Except for one thing : when the party not only admits the truth of the matter asserted but affirmatively alleges it in a lawsuit against someone else. It is a lawsuit by someone who professes to have no connection with the alleged servicing of any transactions that are referred to as residential mortgage loans. It is never named in any lawsuit as a servicer. It does not show up in court as the source of servicing records. It does not send any robowitness to court to say that he/she is familiar with the books and records of this company. And yet, here is XXXX XXXX, formerly XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX. In a lawsuit against XXXX, XXXX XXXX asserts that XXXX infringed upon its proprietary system that supplies the servicing records for 62 % of all servicing performed in the U.S., and that means that in 62 % of all foreclosures, the companies that were proffered as servicers were not the servicers or at least did not perform all servicing functions especially, as you read the complaint, as to payment histories and relevant documents for foreclosure. So here is the only company that was ever caught red handed with fabricating, falsifying, recording, forging, robosigning false transaction documents. They changed their name but not their business model. Their business model is being the central repository of all the data that is created, stored, and manipulated with respect to 62 % of all alleged loans. That makes XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX and other loan servicers liars. No document is ever produced showing that XXXX XXXX was named as servicer for any trust. That is because the trust has nothing and XXXX XXXX is not working for nothing. XXXX XXXX is working for investment banks who are the prime and only drivers of all trading, administration, collection and enforcing of contracts relating to securities and homeowner transactions. So when the servicer representative comes into court to testify as to the foundation of the payment history, he/she lies under oath. First, the copies he/she is attesting to are not from any system owned or controlled by his company and are not the records of the trustee or trust of any REMIC Trust. Second those records are always missing any references to what goes out. Without entries showing disbursements to creditors, the records are incomplete. Without records showing establishment of the debt as an asset of some creditor, the records are incomplete and doesnt prove a default. A default is established ONLY when proof of ownership of the asset ( Loan ) is established in the name of the claimant or Plaintiff. This never happens because there is no creditor showing the loan as an asset on its financial statements. In current securitization practices, there is no creditor that actually claims ownership under generally accepted accounting principles that require a financial transaction ( payment ) in exchange for a conveyance of ownership of the underlying debt as a required by Article 9 203 UCC as adopted by all U.S. jurisdictions. And if they are not creditors then they cant be considered lenders and therefore can claim that lender liability does not attach to them. And without any officer of the trustee or trust testifying that those are there records of test rust, the copies preferred by the foreclosure mill and the robowitness are just props to defraud homeowners and Courts. Besides fake Servicers and Trustees XXXX XXXX use other fictitious parties, like XXXX who is assigned as a Mortgagee in millions of loans to conduct purely illegal assignments. XXXX never owned any debt ; plus cheat Counties from billions of dollars in recording fees. MERS never signed any documents where they agreed to be an owner of my loan ; never disclosed to me in RESPA ; and never confirmed its status as a Mortgagee. Yet, purported XXXX ( aka XXXX XXXX ) created a forged assignment to non-existing legal entity more than 4 years after this Trust was not formed. No document executed on behalf of XXXX allegedly transferring ownership of a mortgage or deed of trust is legally valid in any manner, shape or form. And that is because unless the transfer of the ownership of the mortgage comes from one who legally owns it, it is a legal nullity the equivalent of a wild deed. Any document purporting to transfer ownership of the mortgage or the right to enforce the mortgage that is not accompanied by a transfer of the debt is a legal nullity. Since XXXX NEVER touches any money and specifically disclaims any interest in any debt, note or mortgage, it can only serve as agent. Since the law ( and about 300 years of legal precedent ) requires that the mortgagee can only be one who has paid value for the debt, XXXX has no power or right to transfer any mortgage or deed of trust unless the originator was an actual lender who owned the debt at the time XXXX was asked to execute an assignment. Any acceptance of instructions from a self -proclaimed principal and successor in the XXXX agency is merely a request to perform an illegal act. There are no successors unless someone acquired the originator. But nobody does because to do so would be inviting liability for lending law violations.
02/22/2022 Yes
  • Debt collection
  • I do not know
  • Took or threatened to take negative or legal action
  • Seized or attempted to seize your property
  • IL
  • 606XX
Web
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX IL XXXX XX/XX/XXXX VIA EMAIL and CFPB Bad Faith Letter and Claim Demand for to XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) under Policy XXXX ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), Issuer of Commitment XXXX ; The Fund, Underwriter ; and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and its Board of Governors ( collectively XXXX ) as XXXX, XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Dear XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX : Please accept this correspondence as my formal written demand for XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX available policy limits under my XXXX XXXX XXXX policy XXXX and pursuant to XXXX guidelines about increased up to 150 % or {$250000.00}, to cover losses in transactions related to my purchase of property located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX IL XXXX which was illegally foreclosed by unknown to me parties to collect non-existing debt which I never had. This is my Title insurance companys duty to investigate my Title before the closing to insure that here no not unknown to me clouds which can result in attacks on my Title ; and process a claim if there has been a loss when is not of the insureds wrongdoings. Legal Grounds for Demand : 1. Reasonability of Request : XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX issued and sold me a Title Insurance policy XXXX, effective date XX/XX/XXXX, in {$170000.00} coverage available for my loss. According to XXXX and XXXX Guidelines, this policy must automatically increase to 150 % after five years. This provision applied to my policy on XX/XX/XXXX. 2. Duty to initiate a Settlement. Illinois has a well-established statutory and case law which requires insurers to attempt in good faith to effectuate settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear. An insurer also has an implied duty to accept reasonable settlement demands on covered claims within the policy limits. The case law speaks of an insurers liability for breach of the duty of reasonable settlement. An insurer that breaches the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing may be liable for the full amount of the judgment based on breach of contract. If the carrier fails to reasonable settle a case within policy limits, it may be exposed to bad faith liability. 3. XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXXXXXX Bad Faith and liabilities. Illinois common law defines bad faith as arbitrary, reckless, indifferent, or intentional actions or disregard of the interests of the person owed a duty ; however, in practice, bad faith presents itself as the insurance company placing its own interest ahead of its insured. To prevent insurers from acting in bad faith, Illinois imposes a duty to deal fairly & in good faith; exemplary damages, attorney fees for breach of contract. The definition of bad faith under Illinois law is arbitrary, reckless, indifferent, or intentional actions or disregard of the interests of the person owed a duty. 4. XXXX liability for its members misconduct. XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX who establish Title Insurance industry customs, practices, standards and claims adjusting procedure. Trade Associations have liability if they purport to undertake a duty to consumers or employees within their industry, set standards, exert control over members of the association, make statements not supported by actual research, ect. 5. Amount of Demand under Insurance Limits : $ {$250000.00} ( or 150 % after 5 years ) 6. Demand time limit : 30 calendar days from this letter, starts XX/XX/XXXX. 7. Claims involved : This Demand is intended to settle only claims with XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX entities and their CEO/employees under my Insurance policy, and against XXXX and its Board members under Trade Association liabilities because if I am forced to proceed with the Court, XXXX will be definitely included in my list of Defendants. I reserve my right to proceed with claims against other parties such as XXXX XXXX, former XXXX CEO, now XXXX Mortgage ; XXXX XXXX ; XXXX XXXX entities, et al ;, XXXX XXXX XXXX ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, owner of XXXX XXXX XXXX, owner of XXXX XXXX, I nc. formerly XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX who forged documents and initiated illegal foreclosure XXXX, XXXX vs. XXXX ; and other parties involved in this scam. Exemptions. Exemption such as fake Mortgages with XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX is not applicable. I never had any mortgages in the original amount {$130000.00} and {$34000.00} with XXXX who was not the Lender but merely aggregator of my data for undisclosed to me XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and its affiliates, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( now XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ; or from anyone else. Here were no money involved in my transaction paid to me or on my behalf. XXXX never loaned me any money and merely allowed to use their name on documents as a pretender lender to obtain my signature on Mortgage and Note which were used by XXXX XXXX in their securitization scheme, which was already established with the prior owner XXXX. During my transaction with XXXX and XXXX XXXX et. al, here already was a prior Pooling and Servicing Agreement already in existence and known to the title agent. If at the item of the loan closing there was an assignment and assumption agreement already in place. Thus, the investors had already purchased so-called mortgage backed securities, that included a description of a temporary set of notes ( XXXX XXXX filings ), that would be replaced by real notes and security instruments pledged as security to the holders of so-called asset backed securities, and if the terms of the pledge within the SPV was an allocation of funds contrary to the terms of the note and mortgage, and if the title agent was aware of sufficient facts to put him on notice that ( a ) undisclosed third parties were involved in the transaction and ( b ) that undisclosed fees were being paid and ( c ) that this could create grounds for three-day rescission, but for the fact that the real lender has not been disclosed assuming all of that, because that is actually what happened does that not mean that there was actual knowledge by the title agent that there are dozens and perhaps hundreds of even thousands of people who have an equitable and legal interest in the security instrument encumbering the property. Generally, the title policy does not require intervention of the carrier until there is a claim. But the errors and omissions carrier for the title agent when put on notice of the claim would have an immediate interest in mitigating the potential loss, and specially actual loss of the property. It is not that there is a hypothetical cloud on title, it is real from the moment that the transaction was consummated and even long before the transaction was consumated. I had no reason to suspect fraud when I signed mortgage and Note to disinterested parties XXXX since this information was intentionally and aggressively concealed and continues to be concealed from me. It took me a substantial amount of time and money, including consultations with securities experts, to figure out that I became a victim of the biggest economic fraud operated by XXXX XXXX Banks who secretly entered lending market place, under glimpse of fake lenders to deceptively obtain home buyers signatures on documents which are used in their securitization ABOUT debt. I didnt know that during all time in question I was dealing with undisclosed to me investment bank, XXXX XXXX XXXX et al who made about 18500 % (!!! ) interest trading my identity on the open market, on top of their existing securitization scheme where actual money were involved only with prior owner XXXX XXXX, who sold it to XXXX XXXX in XXXX who sold it to me in XXXX. Neither XXXX or I never had any loans ( means nobody loaned us any real money ). We only received information about money, which does not constitute mortgage or loan or debt. It was not known to me until recent time ; but it was known by XXXX who had duty to investigate my claim when I submitted it, which XXXX refused to do, acting in bad faith, and continue to refuse falsely claiming exemption of non-existing Mortgages with XXXX. I never had any mortgages with XXXX, who was not the Lender ; and XXXX did not assigned my alleged Mortgage to XXXX, which itself was an illegal transfer since ( 1 ) XXXX was not a lender ; ( 2 ) XXXX was not XXXX agent ; had no authority to accept such assignment and never accepted any Assignments from XXXX since according to XXXX own words it is not a Mortgagee ; ( 3 ) assignment of mortgage ( even when the mortgage and the lender are legit ) without Note is legal nullity in all jurisdictions. XXXX XXXX banks have figured out a way to parse every potential attribute of every actual and implied transaction. This has resulted in innumerable ways in which the documents are not only fabricated but inconsistent. Most people, including myself, wrongfully assumed that some transactions have been memorialized. In fact, no transaction has been memorialized, and the apparent and falsely implied transfer of the note conflicts with the apparent and falsely asserted transfer of the mortgage are actually in conflict. It is for this reason all assignments of mortgage executed by XXXX are void. XXXX is only an agent and it is only an agent for a lender or a successor lender. All documents executed on behalf of XXXX should announce, and sometimes do an ounce, that they are executed on behalf of a specific principle, as successor to the previous principal who could issue instructions to XXXX. It is widely known and fully understood that XXXX is nothing more than a nominee and therefore a potential agent if a principal has a contractual relationship with XXXX. It disclaims any rights to payments, notes, mortgages, debts, or obligations. It has no interests of its own since it neither was involved in the lending or servicing of any transaction that was labeled as a loan. This it can only serve as a potential agent to a master or principal who legally possesses some legal right, title, or interest to something ( asset, loan etc. ) and issues instructions to the agent to perform such acts as the master or principal has instructed. No such instructions are ever issued by XXXX because no such set of instructions can claim, much less warrant, any right, title, or interest to any debt, obligation, note, or mortgage lien. Succession as to ownership and authority over an alleged mortgage loan can only occur if one of two things occurs. A third party bona fide purchaser for value buys the loan account and assumes liability for any violations or problems or losses in the future OR third party bona fide purchaser for value buys the company who owns the loan account and assumes liability for any violations or problems or losses in the future. This has never been alleged or proven in any court of law or equity. Alleged Plaintiff XXXX XXXX never had any of my documents ; and fake Assignment of Mortgage ( legal nullity ) prepared and recorded by XXXX XXXX XXXX dba XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on behalf of XXXX to XXXX XXXX is essentially void. Even IF XXXX were a real lender, they are bankrupt and non-existing since XXXX, as well as XXXX XXXX XXXX which existed in name only. Thus, in XXXX here were no single party who can legally assign anything to XXXX XXXX ; and assignment of Mortgage without Note by XXXX who was not an agent to XXXX, is legal nullity in all jurisdictions. The effective purchases of mortgages that must be memorialized by an assignment of mortgage that is attendant or contemporaneous with the purchase of the underlying alleged unpaid obligation due from the homeowner. Homeowners are misinformed about presumed existence of a valid loan and transfer of ownership and rights to administer, collect and enforce the alleged underlying obligation, which either never existed, like in my situation ; or has ceased to exist and is not reported as a loan account receivable on the accounting ledger of any person or business entity - like in XXXX XXXX transactions. The reason for that is that the underlying obligation can ONLY be the original transaction that induced the homeowner to issue a note and mortgage in exchange of REAL money as a loan I never seen a cent loaned to me by XXXX ; I never received any confirmation from XXXX that they accepted any mortgages from XXXX ; my Note is masterfully forged and missing from all records since the Judge criminally concealed purportedly original from my case records ; and XXXX as Plaintiff always refused to communicate with me and now claims that it has no relationship to this matter. Here is no one including XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX or XXXX who ever claimed to be a holder in due course. But lawyers, who even did not know who was their client, argued as though they are entitled to the presumptions that attend the status of a holder in due course. XXXX XXXX, alleged Servicer has absolutely no records of my alleged loan or about this foreclosure. Plaintiff XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Master Servicer XXXX XXXX deny its involvement, even when I asked to provide me a proof of money after sale of my property to third party who is currently in illegal passion of stolen from me property. Realtor XXXX XXXX, who illegally sold my property, has no idea who was his client since he received all instruction from XXXX website called XXXX XXXX XXXX or XXXX. I never saw any Notices of Default or any allegation or any proof that anyone suffered a default as a result of not receiving a payment from me. The reason is simple. If they were never entitled to receive the money there was no default. And if the default status has been transferred to third undisclosed parties then those parties must nevertheless be identified and satisfy the conditions precedent to making any claims to administer, collect or enforce. Since there is no allegation of financial harm, and no allegation of purchase of an existing unpaid underlying obligation, the constitutional requirements for a case in controversy are violated since my entire transaction was with undisclosed Investment Bank who seek additional profits on top of enormous revenues received from all prior securitizations schemes, started from XXXX, information about which was passed to me as a loan in advancing an illegal scheme for profit. Permanent Illegal Lien in my property. In the case of lending actual money for my purchase, there would be easily confirmable supporting documents that show proof of payment from XXXX, along with an entry on the accounting ledger of the alleged lender showing a decrease in one asset category ( e.eg. Cash ) and a corresponding increase in another category of assets ( e.g. loans receivable or loan account receivable ) ; as well as proof of payment during all alleged sales No such documents or ledger entries occur in the world of securitization. Without a sale of the asset ( e.g. loan ) the representations and claims, correspondence, notices, allegations, and assertions in and out of court are without any foundation. What the major XXXX XXXX brokers did, was remove physical delivery and replace it with the appearance of physical delivery, so that production of a copy of the note along with some assertion, affidavit, or allegation about the note, would give rise to the assumptions that something real was happening to the note. In fact, it affirmatively appears that in most cases, the note was destroyed to prevent two fictional trees ( or more ) from growing from a lie. 3. Unmarketable Title. After initial securitization scheme was established by unknown to me Investment Bank ( likely XXXX XXXX ), no further real financing is necessary for two reasons : the borrower usually never asks for the proof of lending ; here is no creditor for the property Seller who can accept this payment to release the lien since nobody owns the account receivable where these money can be deposited. a. I applied for a loan and assumed that I get a " loan ''. I assumed the XXXX wired actual money. In reality I inherited information about the original securitization scheme with XXXX masqueraded as mortgage where nobody loaned me any money, only information about money. b. As the result, nobody paid XXXX Bank any money to satisfy seller XXXX XXXX mortgage since XXXX herself had no mortgages, only information about XXXX scheme. In fact, XXXX Bank would not be able to deposit any money on XXXX non-existing account receivable - even if I paid all cash for the property. Similarly, XXXX XXXX never received a cent from sale of my property on XX/XX/XXXX, or {$130000.00} even though I specifically demanded to disclose if XXXX Bank did received it and deposited in account receivable for my alleged loan As the result, this prior Mortgages remain on the chain of Title as illegal liens ( clouds ) which are impossible to remove since here is nobody who has authority to remove them because no one owns account receivables or rights to remove these fictitious liens and will cloud my Title forever. 4. Defectively recorded documents. All documents pertaining to my purchase and fake transfers are fraudulent, forged and defectively recorded. 5. Taking into consideration the clear negligence ( should be called fraud ) established by XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX, it seems difficult to argue that if I file my case with the Court, a verdict against you and your executive officers and personnel would not likely be greatly in excess your available policy limits. I am not talking about your own litigation expenses to defend numerous individuals and corporate entities XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX, and XXXX as its trade association. I expect you to offer the full $ {$250000.00} policy limit ( {$170000.00} at 150 % ) to protect your best interests and insulate you from an excess judgment plus litigation expenses and negative public exposure since I plan to bring XXXX and its Board as co-defendants in my case based on trade association liabilities to injured clients. I am willing to accept the $ {$250000.00} as full and final settlement of all claims with XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX and XXXX. I trust that XXXX will promptly comply with my demand. I would assume that XXXX join this position because it is your duty to protect your client and his best interests. I believe XXXX Title failure to offer the available policy limits to protect their insured are operating in bad faith. XXXX title failure to provide limits would be demonstrative of greater concern for XXXX monetary interests than the financial hardship and devastation to their insured. Please let me know XXXX, XXXX, tXXXX XXXX and XXXX response to this settlement demand within the next 30 days. I look forward to hearing back from you. Very truly yours, XXXX XXXX
07/18/2018 Yes
  • Mortgage
  • Conventional home mortgage
  • Trouble during payment process
  • NC
  • XXXXX
Web
Please respond in writing and advise me of ; 1 ) Any Interest XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, its subsidiaries, reinsurer and or affiliate have, hold and or own, including Beneficial Interest in properties commonly known as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NC XXXX and or XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NC XXXX. 2 ) Please provide me with the legal description of any first mortgage loan ( s ) fee simple real estate that you or your subsidiary, reinsurer and or affiliate have accepted without recourse as it relates to the insurer ; ( 11 NCAC 11C .0119 ). 3 ) Please respond to my previous letter dated XX/XX/XXXX as this now serves as my third request. 4 ) Please provide me with the policy numbers as reflected on the HUD dated XX/XX/XXXX for the GAP in coverage spanning XX/XX/XXXX - XX/XX/XXXX. 5 ) Please provide written explanation of why XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX insured stacked and recorded four Deeds of Trust specifically dated XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX that were not in compliance with XXXX XXXX ( servicer ) closing attorneys specific written instructions. Thank your in advance for taking the time to understand my complaint and your substantive response to these specific five issues each being numbered above. Regards - XXXX XXXX XXXX
02/23/2021 Yes
  • Mortgage
  • Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)
  • Trouble during payment process
  • FL
  • 33144
Web
Good morning, I applied for a HELOC loan with XX/XX/XXXX. When I applied for the loan, XX/XX/XXXX asked me pay off two credit card balances XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX. The balance of the chase credit card was {$9000.00}. When I received the check from Old Republic Title, I went to the bank to pay off the balance, but they didnt received the check because the balance by the time was ( {$7700.00} I had paid days before {$1300.00} ). I called Old Republic Title and the representative asked me to void the check and she will send me another one for {$7700.00}. I received the check, went to bank and paid off the balance. The issue was, Old Republic Title didnt update this change to XXXX, they didnt update the amount of money paid was {$1300.00} lower and I am paying ( still ) the original amount of {$9000.00}. I made many complains to USBank including two complains to CFPB. Finally, I understood the mistake was not made by XXXX but Old Republic Title. I am requesting to refund {$1300.00} + Interest paid. Old Republic National Title. XXXX
08/01/2018 Yes
  • Mortgage
  • Conventional home mortgage
  • Incorrect information on your report
  • Information belongs to someone else
  • NC
  • XXXXX
Web
Please accept this formal request to provide me that certain written : Request to Terminate an Equity Line of Credit under N.C.G.S. 45-82.2 on any alleged account ( s ) relating to me secured by real property commonly know as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , NC XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , NC XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , NC XXXX. Thank you, XXXX XXXX Policyholder
03/28/2018 Yes
  • Mortgage
  • Conventional home mortgage
  • Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage
  • TX
  • 77007
Web
all parties involved did not stop the process of a lien costing me {$3000.00} and much more time from work and using unfair practices all parties enclosed
06/27/2018 Yes
  • Mortgage
  • Conventional home mortgage
  • Closing on a mortgage
  • IL
  • 60617
Referral
12/24/2017 Yes
  • Mortgage
  • Other type of mortgage
  • Closing on a mortgage
  • CA
  • 91765
Web
09/12/2017 Yes
  • Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports
  • Other personal consumer report
  • Incorrect information on your report
  • Information that should be on the report is missing
  • OH
  • 44039
Phone
11/16/2016 Yes
  • Debt collection
  • Mortgage
  • Disclosure verification of debt
  • Not given enough info to verify debt
  • FL
  • 32750
Referral
03/24/2016 Yes
  • Mortgage
  • FHA mortgage
  • Settlement process and costs
  • TX
  • 76023
Phone Older American, Servicemember
09/08/2015 Yes
  • Mortgage
  • Other mortgage
  • Settlement process and costs
  • WI
  • 54301
Referral Older American
11/29/2013 Yes
  • Debt collection
  • Mortgage
  • Cont'd attempts collect debt not owed
  • Debt is not mine
  • GA
  • 30274
Referral
08/23/2012 Yes
  • Mortgage
  • Other mortgage
  • Settlement process and costs
  • PA
  • 19125
Web