Date Received: 2018-02-09
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I purchased a home in XX/XX/XXXX and refinanced in XX/XX/XXXX when the mortgage went up to double in XX/XX/XXXX I did not know this was going to happen they tried to foreclose in XX/XX/XXXX but did not have the deed. I was not eligible for the National mortgage settlement because the foreclosure was dismissed the house sat unoccupied for 2 years I was contacted by XXXX XXXX XXXX to move back and they would help me save my home so I could sell it and get it off my credit that never happened I had to move my family from XXXX to XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX in attempts to save the house that XXXX XXXX XXXX was going to foreclose for the second time after the there was no activity in the house for 10 years. I believe they did not go for the foreclosure XX/XX/XXXX so they would not be penalized and I would not be able to get the settlement for there misconduct. Now 10 years later XXXX XXXX XXXX with the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. are back in court trying to foreclose on this house. I hired a group to do a forensic review and was told there was robo signing and federal laws broken. They are trying to foreclose in XX/XX/XXXX. File Number : XXXX
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: FL
Zip: 34771
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-02-16
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-02-08
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I own a property at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX fl XXXX. In XXXX, I received a letter saying that XXXX, XXXX was taking over that mortgage and my other mortgage at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX fl XXXX. The letter stated that nothing about the mortgages at all would change. I had the house at XXXX built and was built on an elevated lot in XXXX. From XXXX until my mortgage was transferred in XX/XX/XXXX, no flood requirements were needed as the house is elevated. XXXX assumes the mortgage and says that FEMA remapped in XXXX and now requires flood. I contacted FEMA and they said that wasnt true ... .it was not remapped in XXXX. I told XXXX this and they said FEMA was wrong and that I had approximately 25 days to get flood insurance or they would place a {$2600.00}. flood policy in escrow against my mortgage. I re-contacted FEMA and they advised me to submit a removal request. FEMA said this process usually takes 60-90 days after I get them info from the flood plain manager in XXXX. I called/emailed/contacted XXXX, asking them for an extension and never heard back. I tried more than 20 times to reach XXXX concerning this matter. NO reply from XXXX. Since I didnt hear back from XXXX, and felt that the {$2600.00}. was an extreme amount, I purchased my own flood policy for {$360.00}. I emailed them asking if they received it in time and they said yes. Both myself and my insurance agent sent this to XXXX. XXXX still placed an additional 2nd flood policy against my mortgage. They are now trying to do this with my residence at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. When I emailed them to figure out why they are doing this, they replied that they would get me an answer in about 30 days! I have had and flood policy for years at that address. SPS are requiring 2 policies per property. They want {$2400.00}. for that policy ... I paid a little over {$310.00}.! I can not reach anyone to provide me answers. Can someone please assist me with this? I have close to 60 hours involved in this and zero answers. Thank you.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: FL
Zip: 33441
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-02-08
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-02-05
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: After multiple unsuccessful attempts of filing complaints against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and its business-partner, Select Portfolio Servicing , Inc., XXXX XXXX asked the OCC to assume Jurisdiction of all complaint filed by CFPB, because the alleged Predatory Lending, Mortgage Fraud, and Racial Discrimination/Racial Profiling " crimes '' occurred betweenXX/XX/XXXXand XX/XX/XXXX ; and during this period, the OCC was the Supervisory Agency for all XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) affiliates. During this period, dozens of serious Regulation C/HMDA violations also were committed by the XXXX affiliate, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( aka XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. ) ; and the OCC was the HMDA Supervisory Agency that was responsibilities for monitoring annual HMDA Loan Application Register ( LAR ) submissions. These submissions required the signature of an Officer of the Bank, certifying that the annual submission was valid and error-free, and that all other information contained in the LAR was for the Respondent ( Bank ) submitting the annual disclosure. During the period between XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX affiliate : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX., was the principal operator of a subprime lending boiler room known as the XXXX XXXX XXXX Center located in XXXX XXXX, PA. This center originated created more than five hundred thousands applications, and originated more than one hundred and fifty-two subprime home mortgage loans, even though it had no HUD certification to originate subprime home mortgage loans. The XXXX XXXX Specialists employees at the XXXX XXXX XXXX Center betweenXX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ; specifically targeted XXXX XXXX and other economically-disadvantaged consumer residing in twenty urban MSAs/MDs, and between the period of XXXX andXX/XX/XXXX, originated more than one hundred and ninety-five thousand subprime and Alt-A conventional home mortgage loans, and only six ( 6 ) FHA/VA/FSA-RHS home mortgage loans. Many, ( if not most ) of the home " Toxic Mortgage '' loans originated at this center betweenXX/XX/XXXXand XX/XX/XXXX were subsequently securitized into RBMS Certificates by a XXXX affiliate. On XX/XX/XXXX thirty-three days before the XX/XX/XXXX, " landmark '' DOJ settlement of the XXXX XXXX Lawsuit was announced, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX who was then the owner and servicer of these " Toxic Mortgage '' loans, outsourced ( " jettisoned '' ) hundreds of these " Toxic Mortgages '' to Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. ; and the " XXXX XXXX XXXX '' made all of these " Toxic Mortgage '' loans ineligible for a share of the XXXX dollar Consumer Relief Provision of this settlement. It is clear that the " XXXX XXXX XXXX '' was the brain-child of XXXX XXXX, but there is strong evidence, that SPS, may have unknowingly been a conspirator to this " Toxic Mortgage '' jettison maneuver. The OCC attempted to refer the SPS portion of the " XXXX XXXX XXXX '' conspiracy to CFPB but CFPB inadvertently filed Complaint Number XXXX to XXXX XXXX instead of SPS ( See attachment entitled Description and Timeline. ) This complaint is being submitted because CFPB submitted the OCC Case Number XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX rather than SPS. ( Also, for additional background see CFPB Complaint XXXX which was closed without arbitration by SPS. )
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: AZ
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-02-05
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-02-03
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: House was scheduled for Foreclosure on XX/XX/XXXX As of XX/XX/XXXX I was still in a possible loan modification. I have the paperwork to show this from the lender. OnXX/XX/XXXX I spoke with lender who said they would not foreclose on me and would removed my home from the auction based on a cash for keys deal. This was on a recorded line verified by my lender. In a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX my lender stated that they were reviewing my modification. Lender is XXXX XXXX
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: TX
Zip: 77354
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-02-08
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-02-03
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: On XX/XX/XXXX, I received my annual PMI disclosure notice from my mortgagor, XXXX XXXX, along with my mortgage interest statement. The disclosure properly contained a notice under the Homeowners Protection Act of XX/XX/XXXX, that PMI should be cancelled on my account on or after either of the following : ( 1 ) the date the principal balance of your loan is first scheduled to reach 80 % regardless of the current balance or ( 2 ) the date the principal balance of the loan actually reaches 80 %. When I called XXXX tonight to acquire about ( 1 ), I was given false and misleading information. I told the customer rep that under the terms of my original loan agreement, that the scheduled date should have occurred 7 years after I first signed my mortgage in XX/XX/XXXX. She first said that they can't give me a date when the loan was scheduled to reach 80 %. She told me that I just have to wait until it actually reaches 80 %. When I told her that her statement contradicted by the notice I received from XXXX and also was in violation of the law, she then actually pulled up the actual notice that was given to me so that she could see that the statement she provided over the phone was in error. She then said that because I had modified my loan, then they can't give me a date. I told her that the loan modification doesn't eliminate XXXX ' requirement to follow the law and abide by and provide an amortization schedule of when the loan is scheduled to reach 80 % of the balance. The entire time the representative was talking to me, she was also getting guidance from a supervisor. This tells me that both your regular and management employees are poorly trained and not knowledgeable about important laws impacting your business.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: MO
Zip: 63139
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-02-03
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-02-02
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: From beginning of XX/XX/XXXX up until XX/XX/XXXX, I have been trying to work with my lender to try to get something done about the property. I informed them back in the early party of XX/XX/XXXX that i had been laid off of my job and i needed to do a loan modification to try and offset what i new would happen inevitably. I tried to do the modification, but eventually my unemployment ran out, so i began to look for a buyer, when i could not find a buyer on my own, i recently went to a Realtor. I was under the impression that i had to pay a realtor to actually list the property. I do not deny that a lot of this situation is procrastination on my part, but i need this short sale to make the matter right. The property is listed at {$130000.00} and we have had a lot of activity with phone calls and showings. I currently have an offer that i would like for the lender to review.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: GA
Zip: 30052
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-02-02
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-02-01
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: On or before XX/XX/XXXX, I sent XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( SPS ) numerous requests ( 6-7 ) for information regarding my XXXX parent 's home in an attempt to establish communication regarding loss mitigation possibilities available by law, as a Successor in Interest. It was not until XX/XX/XXXX, after filing a CFPB complaint did SPS respond with a procedure for me to follow to document and verify my status as Successor In Interest. I expeditiously faxed the required documentation as requested the very next day and followed up with SPS via telephone on XX/XX/XXXX. Their response was, " we have no information regarding your request at this time. '' When asked when they would know, they stated we do not know when, call back in a few days to check. Please keep in mind I had already been verified by XXXX as a Successor in Interest prior to XXXX sending my parent 's loan to SPS for servicing. SPS 's response was that I had to start the process all over again. Therefore, this process has been going on for well over six months. SPS 's calculated attempts to impede my lawful rights as a Successor in Interest is suspicion for fraud. As time goes on, their self serving profit generating actions further impede my right to explore loss mitigation options that may allow me to keep my parent 's home and avoid litigation. Therefore, SPS continues to violate the early intervention requirements of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, as well as other laws enacted to protect the consumer.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: NJ
Zip: 08085
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-02-01
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-01-31
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I am writing this letter and submitting a claim because I believe financial harm and predatory lending practices are being done to me. Please reference mortgage loan # XXXX. The servicer of this mortgage is Select Portfolio Servicing ( SPS ). I would also like to note that I submitted a previous claim in regards to this same topic. REF Claim # XXXX and I thought my case was resolved with the confirmation letter provided to me by SPS on XX/XX/XXXX. I also believe that financial harm has been done to me. On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a confirmation letter from SPS stating that upon completion of the final trial modification payment that the final modification offer will include Principal, interest, taxes and insurance. Taxes and Homeowners Insurance is considered escrow. As proof of the false misinformation provided to CFPB and myself by SPS ( Select Portfolio Servicing ), I will be submitting all the pertinent documents, ranging from the letter stating that escrow will be included in the permanent modification documents along with the documents stipulating the terms and conditions of the new mortgage modification. That said I would also like to highlight financial harm that is being done just on the permanent mortgage modification offered. No Escrow in the mortgage modification as previously stated. It seems like this modification was streamline and no debt to income was taken into account Prior to default the length to maturity of this mortgage was roughly 19 years. With this new modification the length to maturity is roughly 20 years. The servicer and the owner of this mortgage could have extended this mortgage to 30 years. Prior to default my mortgage was {$1100.00}. XXXX now the new permanent mortgage payment will be {$320.00} excluding escrow. My current escrow is roughly {$650.00}. If SPS were to include Escrow in my mortgage payment then my new mortgage would add up to roughly {$950.00}. Now based on the information provided in the bullet points, the reason why I know financial harm as well as predatory lending practices are being done to me are as follow. According to the permanent modification documents and should I signed and accept the terms and conditions of this offer. I would incur financial harm because my mortgage amortization ( speed by which my mortgage will be paid off ) and the maturity of the loan are not completely factored in or are done as a predatory tactic. That is why my new mortgage payment will only be {$320.00} ( PRINCIPAL AND INTERERT ONY ) and not roughly {$460.00} ( PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ONLY ). The servicer of the mortgage ( Select Portfolio Services ) and the owner of the note ( mortgage ) did not extend the mortgage maturity to at least 30 years in order to factor 31 % Debt to Income. Due to the new terms and conditions of the new mortgage modification, I incur a balloon payment of roughly {$53000.00}. Of the $ XXXX-balloon payment roughly {$17000.00} were not fully amortized. Therefore this will add {$17000.00} to the {$36000.00}, which according to the final modification terms will be in an escrow account, making a balloon payment of {$53000.00} upon maturity of the mortgage. In conclusion, I totally believe that the mortgage servicer ( SPS ) executed a streamline in house medication and never provided me the opportunity to submit my financial data so that the mortgage servicer can evaluate my debt to income. If the mortgage servicer had included my debt to income then the mortgage servicer would have immediately realized that including escrow my mortgage could have been roughly {$1200.00} based on the 19 years remaining on my mortgage and not extending the years to pay off the mortgage. For the record, between my Social Security and pension income, I make roughly {$3900.00}. If the servicer did a proper analysis of my debt to income, this mortgage offer would not have been made under these terms and conditions. When evaluating a mortgage modification including escrow the servicer and/or owner of the mortgage would normally do so based on a 31 % debt to income. Lastly when a modification is done, ESCROW is mandatorily Impounded meaning that the mortgage payment must include Principal, interest, taxes and insurance ( ESCROW ) With that being stated I am submitting this claim and state that financial harm is being done to me and that the verbal original terms and conditions along with a confirmation letter stating that Escrow will be included in my final modification are being violated.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: NJ
Zip: 07107
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-01-31
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-01-30
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: We thought that we could get a lower rate from 4.95 %, principal balance forgiveness or some sort of assistance, we were asked to put in for a loan modification to get help. What we got was an interest rate of 4.95 % which is what it supposed to be anyways plus a final balloon payment ( over 139,000 ) -a rip off. You advertised on your website that you are committed to helping home owners with home retention, so how have you helped us? You asked to a bunch of documents, we sent them in for assistance, what we got is a total rip off. Attached are supporting documents for the interest rate of 4.95 % which is where were at prior to the first mod.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: MD
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-01-30
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-01-30
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: XXXX XXXX XXXX transfer my loan to SPS servicing. For the last three years they have tormented me stating they dont have proof of flood insurance and I know they do because it renews in XXXX every year and they have all the information. Every year they threaten to force place Flood insurance on me at the rate of {$4500.00} per year. I have provided them proof and they keep threatening. Most recently XX/XX/2018. Every time I call in there I get stuck talking to a person from a different country that can not understand English. When my loan was modified by XXXX XXXX XXXX they took advantage of me and my family financially ( by placing us in a 40 year loan that we didnt need ). Then they turn around And sell the loan to SPS Because they did not want 40 year loans on their books. It has been a complete headache in more ways than one. Please Help.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: IN
Zip: 46074
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-01-30
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A