Quality Loan Service Corporation Mortgage Complaint

Quality Loan Service Corporation Mortgage department,

Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM) Loan servicing, payments, escrow account California

I have determined there was apparent fraud involved with respect to several parties involved in invalid transfers/assignments of the Deed of Trust and Note relating to the above-mentioned property address. The invalid and fraudulent conveyance of rights, title and interest created lack of authority to transfer, substitute, or convey rights, title and interest of my property rights in relation to Deed of Trust, dated -/-/- and recorded -/-/-. The Servicere keep sending me all mail not related to the complaint at all. As an additional matter, we have performed a review of the current loan activities with your company. Needless to say, we are alarmed with the manner in which we have been treated by your company 's representatives. Your representatives have made blatant misrepresentations causing us serious damages, including the potential


There are many legal issues here ; LACK OF CLARITY AS TO REAL PARTY IN INTEREST WITH STANDING TO FORECLOSE The Deed Must Follow the Note : Physical Separation of the Promissory Note From the Deed of Trust, Necessarily Results in the Permanent Severance of the Relationship between the - Instruments, and Any Previous Ability of - to Produce Any Causal Effect upon the Other is Extinguished We believe and allege in good faith the all foreclosure actions being presently carried out against us and our property is invalid. Assignment of Deed of Trust, dated -/-/- and recorded -/-/- ( Exhibits " G '' ) and the Corporation Assignment of Deed of Trust/Mortgage, dated -/-/- and recorded -/-/- ( Exhibits " H '' ), that purportedly assigned all beneficial interests under the original Deed of Trust ( Exhibit " A '' ) to the purported foreclosing beneficiary, - - Bank - -, as Trustee for -., was invalid by the very contractual rules that govern deposits of Deeds of Trust and Notes into this Securitization Trust. Also, this assignment would have resulted in the permanent separation of the Promissory Note from the Deed of Trust, and thereby converted the debt on the Property into unsecured debt. Chain of title in this case is unclear to say the least. The right to foreclose appears to sit with more than one party but in actuality belongs to no part involved with this case. ( 1 ) The first possibility is that only the Deed of Trust was assigned via either the Assignment of Deed of Trust, dated -/-/- and recorded -/-/- ( Exhibits " G ) and not the note. The pooling and servicing agreement ( Exhibit " P '' ), which created the trust, does not allow ANY individual transfers into the trust after - days after the closing date ( Exhibit " P '', pp. - ). The closing date on this Securitization Trust was -/-/- ( Exhibit " G '', pp. - ). This would extend the maximum allowable time for the deposit of both the Deed of Trust and the Note, together, into this trust to about -/-/-. This Assignment of Deed of Trust, dated -/-/- and recorded -/-/- ( Exhibits " G '' ) was not executed until -/-/- respectively. These dates are four years after the outermost deadline allowed under the contractual terms of the pooling and servicing agreement. A proper, timely, and lawful transfer of this property into this securitization trust is a contractual and factual impossibility. Therefore, only the Deed of Trust was transferred and thus the Trust only has possession and ownership of the Deed of Trust, not the note. The Deed of Trust alone is a nullity and has no authority to foreclose.