- Report: #113902
Complaint Review: Homeq - Money Store - North Highlands California
-
Author Not Confirmed
Why?
Homeq - Money Store
4837 Watt Ave. Suite 100 North Highlands, 95660 California, U.S.A.
Phone:
888-892-0640
Web:
N/A
Categories:
Business Rating:
(0)
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good?
Homeq - Money Store ripoff Double selling deeds of trusts to Bank of New York North Highlands California
A friend of mine had his parents home repossessed by The Money Store, now Homeq. The company (The Money Store)used a name not properly listed with the Secretary of State as a valid corporation (making the transaction void), a trustee not recorded (illegal) who used a name not recorded with the Secretary of State was used as a foreclosure agent.
The new title after the foreclosure did not include a proper acknowledgement (We do not know if the Bank of New York even new their property from foreclosure was being sold)
Further research with other filings in the county (other borowers) included the following findings:
The Marketing and Pooling agreements noted on the assignment of the deed of trust pre-dates the deed of trust. (legally impossible)
The deed of trust is assigned to the Bank of New York in a marketing and pooling agreement and six months later the same deed of trust is again assigned (sold) to the Bank of New York under a different marketing and pooling agreement.
The date the notary notarized the signatures on the assignments predates the date of recordation of the deed of trust itself. (legally impossible)
The question is, "Was The Money Store selling the note twice or was the Bank of New York recording it twice to pad assets?"
I do not know if the same irregularities are being followed by the now current Homeq.
Paul
Arbuckle, California
U.S.A.
The new title after the foreclosure did not include a proper acknowledgement (We do not know if the Bank of New York even new their property from foreclosure was being sold)
Further research with other filings in the county (other borowers) included the following findings:
The Marketing and Pooling agreements noted on the assignment of the deed of trust pre-dates the deed of trust. (legally impossible)
The deed of trust is assigned to the Bank of New York in a marketing and pooling agreement and six months later the same deed of trust is again assigned (sold) to the Bank of New York under a different marketing and pooling agreement.
The date the notary notarized the signatures on the assignments predates the date of recordation of the deed of trust itself. (legally impossible)
The question is, "Was The Money Store selling the note twice or was the Bank of New York recording it twice to pad assets?"
I do not know if the same irregularities are being followed by the now current Homeq.
Paul
Arbuckle, California
U.S.A.
