Date Received: 2018-10-27
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: A mortgage financial company is providing refinance funds to refinance my property at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, NY. Select Portfolio Servicing ( SPS ) has been offered a {$850000.00} short payoff amount. The principal owed is only {$680000.00}. The additional amount represents additional fees and interest. I, as well as my authorized representatives, have been negotiating with SPS. They are often put on hold by the SPS representative and nobody returns on the line an hour later. Two months later, I do not have a response from SPS. The last time I spoke with a representative on Tuesday, XX/XX/2018, she said that I did not include the date under my signature in a Hardship Letter that I had provided ( the letter was dated XX/XX/2018 ). Even though the top of the had the date, I printed out a copy and, included the current date under my name. The SPS representative said I would hear back in 24 to 48 hours. It has been a week now and I have not heard anything. SPS is putting me in a position that I may lose my property because the bankruptcy judge does not believe I am trying to resolve this issue with SPS. I will have to escalate this action to a legal one.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: WV
Zip: 253XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-10-31
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-10-26
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: In XX/XX/XXXX XXXX sent me a letter stating that my Mortgage Loan APR, was automatically reducing to 8.4 % from 9.875 %, and it was locked for 5 years. Soon after, XXXX XXXX XXXX took over XXXX, I told XXXX XXXX XXXX about the automatic rate drop XXXX promised me for 5 years ( XXXX-XXXX ) and XXXX XXXX XXXX wouldn`t honor it. I wrote XXXX XXXX XXXX Corporate Headquarters twice, they stated I was never mailed a letter like that from XXXX. I assured them that I did, and I wrote them again stating that I still have the original letter. They wouldn`t honor it a second time. Soon after, XXXXXXXX XXXX took over my Mortgage loan. Select Portfolio Servicing is the servicer of my loan. I have told them over and over repeatedly, that my balance is not correct because my balance should be less because my APR should be less for 5 years and I would be paying more balance and less interest over the 5 year term. They will not accept this part of my loan servicing either. I payed {$120000.00} for my home in XXXX and now in XXXX Select Portfolio and XXXXXXXX XXXX say that I owe just over {$220000.00}. and they are trying to foreclose on my property in the next few months. I recently read the CFPB bulletin, dated XXXX, page 4 to servicers about loan transfers and making sure they know about any modifications or trial offers made by previous servicer. And I wonder why nothing has ever been done on my loan. The following is pasted from the article ... ... During a number of examinations, CFPB examiners determined that servicers had failed to properly identify loans that were in a trial or permanent modification with the prior servicer at time of transfer. In other exams, CFPB examiners found that servicers had failed to honor trial or permanent modification offers unless they could independently confirm that the prior servicer properly offered a modification or that the offered modification met investor criteria. In some of these instances, CFPBs examination determined that the transferee servicers did not obtain all of the information they needed from the transferor servicer. As a result, the servicers required borrowers to submit additional paperwork or to provide copies of financial documents they had already submitted to the transferor servicer. These servicers also subjected some borrowers to substantial delays while reunderwriting their loans. In some cases, the borrowers subsequently received a new modification with inferior terms, and in others, the servicer actually conducted a foreclosure sale. In all of the cases discussed above, CFPB examiners concluded, based on the particular facts, that the servicers had engaged in unfair practices. The following from the same article was never done by either bank as well ... Error Resolution Procedures ( 12 CFR 1024.35 ) and Requests for Information ( 12 CFR 1024.36 ) Servicers are required to meet certain procedural requirements for responding to notices of error and written information requests. If the transferee servicer receives a notice of error or information request from the borrower or the borrowers agent, the transferee servicer must comply with all applicable requirements under 12 CFR 1024.35 and .36 within the regulatory timeframes, even if the transferor was servicing the loan at the time of the alleged error or the event about which information is requested. A transfer does not relieve transferor servicers from their obligations under 12 CFR 1024.35 and .36. Transferor servicers are obligated to respond to notices of error and information requests received from the borrower or borrowers agent up to one year after the loan was transferred or discharged.10 In closing, something has to be done about the amount my bank says I owe and furthermore I don`t see how they have the right to foreclose on my property when they don`t even know how much I really owe.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: NY
Zip: 130XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-10-31
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-10-26
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem
Subissue: Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Consumer Complaint: This is a continuation of Complaint # XXXX which was closed prior to allowing the consumer to respond with additional information. The timeline : Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. ( SPS ) XX/XX/2017 = Due to financial setbacks, we notified Select Portfolio Servicing , Inc. ( SPS ) we would be unable to cover payments by XXXX 2017 and initiated a Request for Mortgage Assistance with them. SPS recommended and *approved* us for a short sale based on our situation. Furthermore, SPS agreed *not* to report us to credit agencies as past due as long as we were in an active short sale process, which we were. XX/XX/2017 = SPS reported 30 days overdue to XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX ( we were still in the short sale process ) XX/XX/2017 = SPS reported 60 days overdue to XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX ( we were still in the short sale process ) XX/XX/2017 = SPS reported 90 days overdue to XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX ( we were still in the short sale process ) XX/XX/2017 = Short sale completed, SPS reported 120 days or no data to XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX ( we closed the short sale process and sold the property ) XX/XX/2017 = Account formally closed *We are not disputing any of the language on the short sale agreement. We're disputing that we did not receive the 120 days Marketing Period as spelled out on SPS 's own website. * We submitted our request for mortgage assistance/short sale to SPS in XXXX of 2017 in the attached Hardship Affidavit. In the meantime we lined up a buyer, and SPS dragged their feet to approve until XXXX of 2017, as noted in the Short Sale Agreement pdf attached. Since we gave them plenty of notice and were current with our payments, we were eligible for XXXX payments for a 120 day marketing period, as spelled out on the company 's own website here : https : //www.spservicing.comXXXX ( Short Sale Overview - Select Portfolio Servicing ) A short sale enables you to sell your home for less than the total amount owed on the mortgage. If eligible, we would accept the short payoff in full satisfaction of the total amount due on the mortgage loan. www.spservicing.com ( under Payments During Marketing Period ) : " Eligible customers may be offered a ( {$0.00} ) XXXX dollar payment plan during the marketing period. SPS will not reject the customers payment if they chose to make their full contractual payment. The marketing period may last no less than one hundred twenty ( 120 ) calendar days, and extensions to the original term may be offered upon discretion of Management. The customer may be required to provide a listing agreement and evidence that property is actively listing for sale. " ****We were eligible, the buyer 's offer was in, and SPS assured us everything was in order. Despite this, they reported us overdue in XXXX ( the month we were approved ), XXXX, and XXXX of 2017 to XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. In essence, 0 marketing days instead of 120. ****
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: FL
Zip: 32707
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-10-26
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-10-25
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Mortgage with XXXX XXXX for {$570.00} k Int at 8.95 %. XXXX suffered hardship of a divorce and asked for a Modification sent complete package. XXXX kept asking for the same documents over and over and it was denied. Called XXXX and I was told not to make payments for them to help me. Insurance was placed and was charged two times one for {$3400.00} dlls XX/XX/XXXX and the following month {$1600.00} XX/XX/XXXX. on XX/XX/XXXX rec. The cost on insurance {$1000.00}. On XX/XX/XXXX had insurance placed again for {$3400.00} dlls. Now my balance was $ XXXX with all the int and over charging of insurance {$7500.00} dlls. XXXX kept loosing documentation and I kept sending it back to them. On XX/XX/XXXX received notice of default letter. Loan was sold to XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. I kept sending the same package for a modification. on XX/XX/XXXX Modification was denied. Sent them another package for modification and it was denied again XX/XX/XXXX. Now XXXX XXXX XXXX kept adding charges to my account and insurance was placed XX/XX/XXXX at {$4400.00}, overcharged {$3000.00} dlls. On XX/XX/XXXX insurance was placed again {$2500.00}, over charged {$1500.00} dlls. On XX/XX/XXXX Insurance was placed again {$5900.00} dlls, over charged XXXX dlls on XX/XX/XXXX trustee sale recorded balance $ XXXX. House was sold for $ XXXX XXXX. I filed for Bankruptcy the same day and sale was rescinded. Loan transfer to XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. I Kept sending complete packages for modification. Again denied on XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX approved Modification with a Loan Balance of $ XXXX and received a letter that all late charges would be waived. There were no charges waived. The Banks kept loosing my paperwork purposely to be overcharged.My Loan was modified to {$2400.00} XXXX dlls per month 2 % int. I would like help on lowering my Principle. As you can see I have been overcharged on placement insurance, and many extra fees that I was over charged for not approving me and string me along to charge all the fees. It took 6 years to approve the modification unbelievable, And I have documentation to support everything. The Value of my home at this time is around $ 750K. The loan is underwater and it has been for 4 years. I called the new servicer SPS asking for the accounting of my loan since it originated. It took about 5 calls and finally they sent one. It can not be read I called them to explain the ledger form it was sent and I was told someone will call me back to explain. I need help on lowering my principal.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: 919XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-10-30
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-10-25
Issue: False statements or representation
Subissue: Attempted to collect wrong amount
Consumer Complaint: Recently, our mortgage account was transferred from Select Portfolio Servicing, LLC to XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX have rejected our payment claiming that the amount due is {$45000.00}. We entered into a contract with previous servicer and is therefore binding. I have attached the repayment agreement on which i have abided by terms under the new contract. The contract states the repayment plan expires on XX/XX/XXXX, yet XXXX XXXX XXXX are requesting an amount the does not comply with our contract. XXXX XXXX XXXX have engaged in Floridas deceptive business practices. The servicer continues to deny that such contract exist and moving forward with the foreclosure action. OnXX/XX/XXXX, i have been making payments timely accordantly to the contract, however the foreclosure case was never dismissed. When a defendants enters into a repayment plan the foreclosure action must be dismiss because the defendants have entered into a loss mitigation agreement with servicer. The foreclosure action has not been dismissed and XXXX is seeking a sale date yet i have been making timely payments sinceXX/XX/XXXX. We ask the Consumer Financial Protection investigate this matter, it is clear on its face that XXXX XXXX XXXX have engaged in Fraudulent banking and business practices.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: FL
Zip: 33157
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-10-25
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-10-25
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I applied for a loan modification and I was denied. The reason given for the denial is that the bank could not lower the payments even after a thorough review of my application and new financial information. The reason for the default is due to medical issues as I injured my XXXX XXXX and had undergone a XXXX and as such I was unable to work for almost one year. At this point I am able and willing to make the payments even if they are higher as there is sufficient income and as such I do not believe that my application for a modification should have been denied.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: NY
Zip: 10462
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-10-25
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-10-25
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed
Subissue: Debt is not yours
Consumer Complaint: On XX/XX/XXXX a friend/family member was searching the web and they found my address and home listed as a pre foreclosure. When in fact my home has been paid off since XX/XX/XXXX. Select Portfolio Servicing Inc. along with others being sued now in court for this slanderous act has added a 7th Trustee named Trustee : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX # XXXX, XXXX, AZ XXXX Phone : ( XXXX ) XXXX. The first alleged Trustee was 1. ] Title company no longer in business as of XX/XX/XXXX, 2nd. ] XXXX a fraudulent company whom listed themselves under XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX whom was found to be fraud by the SEC in XX/XX/XXXX. 3rd. ] XXXX 4th. ] XXXX and subsidiaries unknown, 5th. XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX not XXXX XXXX but XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX unknown and fraudulent. 6. ] was XXXX 7. ] is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX A lien was placed upon the property by a XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX formerly of a out of business company named XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX as of XX/XX/XXXX whom both now are currently working and well hidden within XXXX XXXX. i XXXX XXXX XXXX own the property and have done so legally and since XX/XX/XXXX. Any attempts of pre-foreclosures have added all parties to current law suits in XXXX circuit and new cases complaint being filed at this time for trespassing and i have a XXXX XXXX USDA lien on my home against anyone whom attempts to take my property, you are now being put on notice. Your partner S.P.S. should have warned you of the current cases but they did not and now you are added along with all personnel realtors title companies and such the like. As of XX/XX/XXXX a QWR and a cease and desist was given to all parties as well No genuine issues produced by the companies involved but they claim to be erroneously sued when in fact they have been in communications with the Appellants since XX/XX/XXXX concerning these matters. The original cease and desist was given via the QWR aka qualified written request and thereafter. All parties have been served the cease and desist over and over again due to the amount of added changes to the defendants roster. They add someone every six months it seems. The evidence provided by the Appellants are clear and undisputed. The Defendants provided the addresses and locations of where to send complaints, forms and letters and such was used to show proof of service thereto all the Appellees. The appeals court can see clearly the evidence of the documents statements affidavits and claims provided are clear and undisputed by the Appellees and the use or attempt to dismiss the case before being argued before the panel and this court is obstruction of justice and failure to due process. Therefore a hearing must be set so that the evidence can be made clear and the Appellants can defend and oppose all that was submitted to the courts and not to the appellees as of XX/XX/XXXX. This case is now in XXXX Circuit court of appeals and thereafter if needed it shall be in the US SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS. SPS asked me the home owner to give them consent to foreclose on my home and i say again they asked me for consent which i will never give the answer was no and its still no. SPS produced fraudulent documents alleging a loan took place but they are four to five different copies the 1st. ] has a date on top with a bar code, the 2nd. ] has no date but adds new signatures, the 3rd has initials at the bottom the fourth has altered dates and newly added loan numbers the fifth is blank. SPS claims to the XXXX XXXX County Registrar office that they have served a Default notice to my home and i swear no notice has ever been served to my property. The newly added Trustee has been added to the multi million dollar suit. For more information go to the courts website and look up case number i, woman, XXXX XXXX XXXX i, man, XXXX XXXX XXXX Court Of Appeal No. XXXX District Court No. - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX et al.,, 2 ; XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Select Portfolio Servicing Inc. not limited to employees and acquired ) XX/XX/XXXX banks involved ) FAIURE OF DUE PROCESS defendants ( s ) and appellee. SPS will lie and say this is in court and they can't say anything but they are being sneaky during our attempts of hearings and court dates trying to sneak on the property break and enter and attempt to take my home, but it aint happening. PERIOD YOU SPS FAW. SPS has attempted to apply this to my credit report but it was blocked and deleted multiple times this year. They are alleging that i have not paid them the so called original lender since two years ago when i have not had a mortgage in over 10 years approximately. They will try to weasel their way out of this complaint but this is being reported to all authorities and sorry to the newly added trustee whom is now being sued and added to the law suit in court to date.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: 93536
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-10-25
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-10-25
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I sent a RESPA letter to SPS and called them regarding an inaccurate pay off statement and inaccurate statements. I called SPS and talked with XXXX XXXX and asked her : 1. Why the amount to reinstate my mortgage was {$450000.00} on my XX/XX/18 Statement versus {$260000.00} on my XX/XX/18 Statement. 2. What is the recurring " Other Charges and Fees '' ( see XX/XX/18 statement ) of {$5300.00}. 3. Why the historical past due amount for XX/XX/18 on my XX/XX/18 statement was {$3400.00} and changed to {$2400.00} on my XX/XX/18 statement. 4. Why did my mortgage payment go from {$2400.00} to {$5300.00} on my XX/XX/18 mortgage statement. 5. How do you justify charging a monthly mortgage amount of {$5300.00} plus {$5100.00} in Other Charges and Fees of {$5100.00} ( see XX/XX/18 stmt. ) for a total of {$10000.00} solely for XXXX.. XXXX ' could not answer the questions and their RESPA response did not answer the respective questions. XXXX stated that the statements were in error and were a projection. She went on to say that the loan had been delinquent for too long to provide an accurate accounting.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: TX
Zip: 75034
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-10-25
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-10-24
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem
Subissue: Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Consumer Complaint: Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. ( SPS ) XX/XX/2017 = Due to financial setbacks, notified Select Portfolio Servicing , Inc. ( SPS ) we would be unable to cover payments by XX/XX/XXXX/XX/XX/2017 and initiated a Request for Mortgage Assistance with them. SPS recommended and *approved* us for a short sale based on our situation. Furthermore, SPS agreed *not* to report us to credit agencies as past due as long as we were in an active short sale process, which we were. XX/XX/2017 = SPS reported 30 days overdue to XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX ( we were still in the short sale process ) XX/XX/2017 = SPS reported 60 days overdue to XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX ( we were still in the short sale process ) XX/XX/2017 = SPS reported 90 days overdue to XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX ( we were still in the short sale process ) XX/XX/2017 = Short sale completed, SPS reported 120 days or no data to XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX ( we closed the short sale process and sold the property ) XX/XX/2017 = Account formally closed As a result of SPS reneging on their written agreement with us not to report us while we were in the process of a short sale, our credit ratings have taken a hit. We were assured by SPS this would not happen. They were negligent, did not return phone calls, or emails. They made us fill out the same stack of paperwork repeatedly. We ended up with a different person every time and had to start over each time with the new people assigned to us.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: FL
Zip: 32707
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-10-24
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-10-24
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: SPS is in violation of CFBP rules, CA HBOR and RESPA guidelines. At issue is a short sale request that was submitted on XX/XX/18 and SPS refused to open the short sale request stating they need a package 60 days prior to a sale date. This is in direct violation of RESPA CFR Part 1024 ( Regulation X ) which clearly state lenders must review for any loss mitigation offers if the file is received within 37 days, excerpt below ; ( c ) Evaluation of loss mitigation applications - ( 1 ) Complete loss mitigation application. Except as provided in paragraph ( c ) ( 4 ) ( ii ) of this section, if a servicer receives a complete loss mitigation application more than 37 days before a foreclosure sale, then, within 30 days of receiving the complete loss mitigation application, a servicer shall : ( i ) Evaluate the borrower for all loss mitigation options available to the borrower ; CA HBOR requires lenders and servers to help homeowners avoid foreclosure. By illegally demanding docs 60 days prior to a sale date when CA residents don't get 60 days notice of a sale date and it's a violation of RESPA guidelines then SPS is breaking CA HBOR laws.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: 94605
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-10-24
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A