Household Beneficial ripoff Elmhurst Illinois

RE: CURRENT DISPUTE WITH HOUSEHOLD FINANCE ACCOUNT

After over one (1) year, I have finally received a direct response from Household finance regarding accounts numbered (original account number) and (new account number). Such response was only gained after your agency (COnsumers Affairs)entered the process. I feel that I was subjected to a willful intent to keep me in the dark regarding the issues presented. There was an intent to keep me from the knowledge of how the loan was constructed; leaving me to believe that an appraisal was conducted to create the loan, and the loan was based upon the valuation of the appraisal. I am now informed, in contradiction with the local HFC Office Managers contention that an Appraisal of $140,000 was attained to fund the loan, that there was no such appraisal used to establish the loan (original account number), as per HFC response dated 17 AUG 2004. Interestingly, I must gain a valid appraisal in order to refinance the loan at a lower interest rate.

Within the response was the statement that "it is acceptable to use the same set of documentation (loan contract?) when re-boarding the loan." However, when I contacted the Comptroller General's Office, Bank Fraud Division, I was informed that if a loan is declared "Paid Off," or "Paid in Full," the signatures cease to be valid, unless the individual receives full disclosure, a copy of the documents, and approves the activity. Please note that by HFC's own admission, the account (original account number) was "CANCELLED" on 6 Aug 2003. However, the contract [was not] presented or signed until 8 Aug 2003. There was no information presented as to any change in the account numbers, or that it was cancelled, as evidenced in the completed loan documents signed on 8 Aug 2003. In fact, the loan documents are devoid of any alteration of account number or documents to indicate their claim of cancellation of the original account number. Their only reference to such activity is based in sole upon "recent" correspondence to your agency and the letter dated 17 Aug 2004. Therefore, it appears to be an after-thought in an attempt to nullify a voluntary discharge of the debt established by Matt Primosic, Records Administrator, HFC; with subsequent validation of the voluntary discharge established in March 2004 by the Records Administration Department of HFC, which provided the following supportive documentation regarding account number (original account number):

"Thank you for your FINAL PAYMENT. We regret we could not find the original loan documents. Please accept this letter as a RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT IN FULL."

Again there was no mention of how the disputed account was created. There was no mention that the account was canceled prior to the creation of the tender value of the note, nor that a new account number was assigned.

In the body of the letter dated 17 AUG 2004, it states the following "a set of loan documentation would not exist for the loan bearing the number (original number)." I therefore request that you view the documents that HFC sent you and you will see that the number listed on their "official Correspondence" to you lists the following ending number: (original account). There is neither strike through nor reference to a NEW account. Therefore, there exists a set of loan documents validating loan number (original loan number); however, no documentation was presented regarding the creation of the new account, the cancellation of the original account, nor the activity of boarding a new account.

Curiously absent from HFC exhibits included with the 17 Aug 2004 correspondence to me was the DEED OF TRUST. The copies of the DEED of trust documents (pages with signatures) indicate account number (to be the original account). Two of the unfinished copies were provided to my wife and myself at the signing, with a copy of the signature pages provided by HFC Representative Victor Hernandez. There was NO ALTERATION of the account number, nor was there an addition that indicated the NEW account number. I have yet to received a conformed copy of the loan documents, or the Deed of Trust as required under section 14 of the Deed of Trust Document. Again, this validates my claim that I had no knowledge of the new account number based upon a conformed copy of the documents creating the loan, or a letter sent to me regarding the changes and reasons for the change. Please note that there was NO HFC Representative present at the signing. We were concerned that my wife was intimidated into signing the Deed of Trust and the Loan Summary as a BORROWER even though we demonstrated that she had no interest in the property as she was paid for her share in the house 3 years prior and signed a quit claim deed at that time. We were informed that it was Missouri Law that required her to sign. I found out after the signing that such was not true as she had previously relinquished and quit claimed forever any interest, implicit or implied in the property. We both contacted HFC to request the full documentation regarding the loan and to correct the Deed of Trust. Therefore, the Deed of trust must be nullified based in sole upon the document being signed under duress of a non-interested party. Because of the inclusion of my wife's name on the Deed of Trust, the house is now subject to listing of assets in a Bankruptcy filing on the part of my wife. I stand to have my assets in the house encumbered by liens for a debt incurred by a non-interested party. HFC has refused to correct this problem, even when presented to Victor Hernandez, HFC Fraud Department Representative in May of 2004.

Interesting is a listing of NET SETTLEMENT, under HUD -1A Settlement Statement - A, under the original account number. Again there is no attempt to correct the settlement statement to reflect the disputed account. Under Exhibit 2 of the supportive documentation provided by HFC under the correspondence of 17 Aug 2004, are a number of checks. Please review your copy of the correspondence (as your office was to receive a copy of it sent from HFC) and take notice of five (5) checks issued to myself. Only one bears the disputed account number. That check is in the amount of $15,941.60. This is the [only] document that supports a claim of a NEW account under number . I have requested that the Pentagon Federal Credit Union provide a copy of the deposit check, which now bares the disputed account number.

Household claims that a set of loan documents would not exist regarding account number, however, you have the evidence in your files to counter this claim. Household claims that they are in full compliance with all state and federal laws, and that re-boarding with a different loan number would have no legal significance. However, in the same statement there is a claim that the letters issued to me stating the original account established by my signature on 8 Aug 2003 to be paid in full is erroneous. I suggest further investigation into this issue as I was informed of a letter was issued on 27 Aug 2003 stating the account was paid in full (of which I never received), then on 17 Dec 2003 from Matt Primozic stating the account to be paid in full, received from Federal Express, and provided when I requested copies of all loan documentation and Deed of Trust. There were other paid in full documents sent via USPS in January 2004, and finally, a letter from the Records Administrator thanking me for FINAL PAYMENT, loan documents could not be found, and RECEIPT for PAYMENT IN FULL (you have such in your records) issued 4 March 2004, and sent to me Fed Express. The concept of inadvertently sent a letter advising the loan to be paid in full is erroneous in that there were at least four (4) letters issued according to HFC's own records, unless the Representatives were in error, of which I presented you copies of two that were sent Fed Express. The reference to "this letter (meaning one letter) was sent in error," causes questions as to [which] letter are they referring to, and why the letters themselves did not provide any indication that the account was closed due to "re-boarding" and the assigned a new account number. HFC failed to provide any documentation to demonstrate an administrative process was followed to provide full disclosure of lending practices and to validate the debt.

Please refer to this statement provided on the 17 Aug 2004 correspondence: " The loan was put back into our system using the same set of loan documentation that you originally signed." By HFC admission on 30 June 2004, the following chronological history was provided:

1) Account number was originally boarded into our system on August 6, 2003.
2) This account number was voided the same day.
3) The loan was re-boarded and assigned account number

With the previous statement and HFC's account on the loan process, it becomes difficult to accept that while the only Loan documents provided by HFC clearly indicate the original account, without any modification or indication of the [new] disputed number, we are to believe the chronology of events comply to state or federal law. A contract is not complete until all parties sign, and full disclosure is provided. How then can a contract be validated if the chronology of events invalidates the claims of HFC? The loan was not created until 8 Aug 2003 as can be validated by the date of signature. No document was provided on the part of HFC to change the account number according to HFC's own documentation. No change of account numbers was provided to the loan documents on 8 Aug 2003 as evidenced by no secondary account being placed on the loan document either through addition or strike through of the original loan account. Nor is there any indication of change, which would require the initials of the signers. If the accounts of HFC was correct and the re-boarding was to have taken place, using the "same set of loan documentation that you originally signed," how is it that such took place without the knowledge of an individual on a document that DID NOT EXIST when it was created on 6 Aug 2003? Again, there was no signature until 8 Aug 2003!

I request that you review Loan Summary in which (spouse)was required to sign as a "BORROWER." This document must be declared invalid because it implies an obligation of a non-participant in the loan procedures. Such was signed under duress as well as the DEED of TRUST document. There was no attempt on the part of HFC to provide a conformed copy of the loan documents or Deed of Trust, so that a valid complaint could be issued regarding the validity of the original loan document. If the original loan document was constructed improperly as to cause question to the validity, then the same status is retained in any "change" of account numbering. We hold that the Loan Summary form is invalid as it was constructed under duress of a non-interested party, and the Deed of Trust is invalid due to the same. Therefore, the Deed of Trust MUST BE NULLIFIED declared invalid and restored to pre contract status. HFC must release any interest established on an invalid document.

Finally, I hold to the position that my account is PAID IN FULL under Voluntary Act as defined in UCC ARTICLE 3 3-604. DISCHARGE BY CANCELLATION OR RENUNCIATION. Part (a.) ...by an intentional voluntary act. The intentional voluntary act was the signed statement of Payment in Full combined with the letter issued from records Administration attesting to receipt of final payment and issuance of a "RECEIPT for PAYMENT IN FULL" issued in March of 2004.

To this date, HFC continues to provide only partial information. I have yet to receive a conformed copy of the Deed of Trust and all the documents used to create this loan as required under Part 14 of the Deed of Trust.

Robbin
St Louis, Missouri
U.S.A.