Date Received: 2017-08-14
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: SPS is trying to dictate who I have as an authorized 3rd party on my file. SPS can not dictate who I choose to have handle my financial matters, this is not up to SPS this is up to the borrower. SPS must immediately CEASE and DESIST all demands as to who they say I have to authorize for my short sale request. If I do not wish my listing agent to be an authorized 3rd party then they will not be an authorized 3rd party.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: 93436
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-08-16
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-08-16
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I submitted a complaint to SPS last month via CFPB. SPS did not respond to the specific questions contained in the Qualified Written Request, nor did they respond to my request to schedule an in-person meeting at SPS HQ in Utah to review their " original copies '' of documents they allege are valid and are associated with my property. SPS is trying to use these so-called documents to foreclose our home based on an assertion of a financial interest that does not exist.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: 90043
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-08-16
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-08-15
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: A review with XXXX XXXX XXXX started in XXXX of XXXX. A call to XXXX XXXX, at XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX stated that all documents were deemed to be complete. This review carried on into XXXX with no decision yet and then a call on XX/XX/XXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX advised that they had service transferred the loan to Select Portfolio Servicing on XX/XX/XXXX but failed to send anything about this service transfer till XX/XX/XXXX ( leaving over a month of not notifying the client of who was currently servicing the loan ). When contact was made with Select Portfolio Servicing finally on XX/XX/XXXX they stated that they did not transfer the review and they needed a complete new packet. They were required to follow the same servicing guidelines as the previous servicer and because they did not, they made the client who would have been eligible for a Making Home Affordable Modification review not eligible since the program ended on XX/XX/XXXX. The review should have continued from the previous servicer and eligibility for the Making Home Affordable Program should have been reviewed. Since the servicing of the loan was not properly transferred the client improperly was denied an option for loss mitigation assistance. The result of the most resent review states that they denied the modification review because of it being " a bad business decision '' and that the loan is not eligible to be modified. In a QWR response by the previous servicer, the owner of the note is named as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX was a participate in the National Mortgage Settlement Agreement. As participants, the consent judgement XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. signed requires them to review for a modification to make the loan more affordable. The consent judgement order from the courts dated XX/XX/XXXX changed that servicing requirement for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX owned and serviced loans investor guidelines where they might prefer not to as specified in the original mortgage note. In this consent judgement there is not a provision for a denial based on " bad business decision. '' They also are required to advise of the financial information that they used to make the decision ( gross income and household expense calculation ) which they are not. The denial leaves it completely unknown as to the information they used to reach their decision.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: MD
Zip: 21122
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-08-15
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-08-16
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Current Servicer as of XX/XX/XXXX is SPS - Prior Servicer : XXXX - Investor - XXXX My loan servicer, XXXX, intentionally, deceptively and unfairly steered me into default ( 90 days delinquency ) and caused me to lose good standing in MHA/HAMP and a principal reduction I was entitled to in the MHA/Making Home Affordable program on my Tier 1 Loan Modification. They then immediately sold or transferred the servicing. The loss of good standing caused me to lose my principal reduction and incentive payments of nearly {$360000.00} as per my HAMP Loan Modification Agreement dated and notarized on XX/XX/XXXX. If it werent for their misconduct and having to rely on their misrepresentation I would have been able to make a decision to pay the arrears to catch up and prevent the 90 day delinquency. They have admitted fault and apologized but left it to SPS to correct. They had a duty to provide me with accurate and truthful information. I had entered into a repayment plan twice due to some complications and recurrence from a long term XXXX I still suffer from ( XXXX XXXX ). At these times I was never 90 days delinquent. I had concerns that if I didnt pay the arrears in full and went into the repayment plan that I would lose my principal reduction. I informed XXXX the repayment plan they were suggesting and offering would take me past 90 days delinquent and would cause me to lose my principal reduction/good standing. I was told by the XXXX customer service representatives I would not lose good standing in the MHA program if I accepted their repayment plan as you are exempt from losing the principal reduction as long as you are in a repayment plan. I confirmed three times with them and managers that if I accepted their repayment plan and terms that I would not lose the principal reduction and good standing. ALL times I was reassured that as long as youre in a repayment plan going past 90 days will not cause you to lose your principal reduction. This is all logged into the system notes as verified and read out loud to me by XXXX representative/mod specialist XXXX XXXX. After entering and accepting the repayment plan they immediately retracted and cancelled the principal reduction at 90 days delinquent, citing that I had lost good standing. I called and was told by XXXX employees that they saw in the system all the notes and that the representatives and management did confirm to me in error that I would not lose good standing/principal reduction. They acknowledged their error and said it would be fixed but that on the XXXX of XX/XX/XXXX just a couple days away the loan servicing would be transferred to SPS. XXXX XXXX ( modification specialist at CHASE ) admitted fault and acknowledged it was CHASEs error. He apologized and advised me that since servicing was switching to SPS that the investor would have to be informed via SPS to correct the error and if they didnt correct it I could retain an attorney. He said they are welcome to call him and he will verify everything in the system as the notes from everyone who confirmed this misstatement was logged but that I couldnt get me a copy of it. He gave me the names of the representatives that confirmed to me the wrong information and read the notes out loud to me. I called SPS about this after they took over servicing XX/XX/XXXX and no one would call XXXX to verify the error. They said they didnt have the notes as it was proprietary information. They told me to file a notice of error with SPS. I did several times and was denied any action or change. No one at SPS ever called CHASE or got the notes or cared about this error enough to investigate it. They responded with the fact that I was 90 days delinquent and lost good standing. I have been misled and lied to and fraudulently cheated out of my principal reduction and steered into default. Where are the XXXX funds that would have paid for the principal reduction? Did XXXX keep them? How did SPS benefit from this transaction? Were they in collusion with CHASE to keep the terms of their financial transaction of this transfer? Something is very suspicious about how this happened as the CHASE representatives were clearly coached to inform borrowers about not losing principal reduction and good standing when in a repayment plan that takes you past 90 days delinquency. Even the managers confirmed it. Who was communicating this incorrect and fraudulent information to this department? And furthermore why was I put into the HAMP/MHA instead of the National Mortgage Settlement XXXX was a part of ( they owned my loan/investor ). They didnt even suggest this to me as an option after they steered me into default. Did they change servicers quickly in a matter of days to prevent them from issuing a principal reduction under another lawsuit they were obligated to? Were they hand picking mortgages based on what gave them the most profit? This is clearly a trend at that time and I suspect these deceptive practices are more widespread. XXXX EMPLOYEES : XXXX XXXX CAS- XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) CAS XX/XX/XXXX She documented notes in XXXX system that my principal reduction wouldnot be affected due to 90 days delinquency as long as I was in repayment plan. XXXX XXXX XXXX Modification Specialist XXXX XXXX stated it was XXXX error and they were at fault. He said he can be reached anytime and will verify this information of the error is correct and will read all notes to confirm in hopes of helping to getting this reversed and error fixed.. He apologized and advised me that since servicing was switching to SPS that the investor would have to be informed via SPS to correct the error and if they didnt correct it I could retain an attorney. He said notes were in the system but that he couldnt give me a copy of it.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: 95821
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-08-16
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-08-11
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: CONSUMER PROTECTION COMPLAINT : XX/XX/XXXX This is the follow-up of our complaint of XX/XX/XXXX ; the mortgage company did sent letters in XX/XX/XXXX regarding the {$16000.00} escrow payment and a balloon payment of {$240000.00}. In that letter from Mortgage Company it only repeated what I already knew. However, this issue has not been resolved the mortgage company is ignoring my request to explain why??. This is not a newly financed mortgage so I do not understand when did the terms of my mortgage changed. Why do we owe {$16000.00} escrow? Why do we now have a {$240000.00} balloon payment? Why is this happening when California has a program save my home affordable housing program or HARP? Please, we just want answers ; therefore, can someone please, please help us keep our home.??
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: 90260
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-08-11
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-08-10
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I just submitted XXXX and forgot to include this additional info and the system wo n't allow me to update the original complaint. On XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX CST I spoke with XXXX XXXX and on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX CST I spoke with XXXX XXXX, both with SPS. I had questions about my account transfer and payments and on both occasions I brought up the question if I was going to be okay with that escrow amount remaining at the end of the loan. Both of them notified me that I would and that I would simply see that amount each month on my statement, but that I only needed to pay the normal monthly payment. These are two agents now with SPS that told me everything would remain the same.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: IA
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-08-10
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-08-18
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action
Subissue: Seized or attempted to seize your property
Consumer Complaint: This COMPLAINT is a demand for a cease and desist of continued attempts to collect fictitious debt. Select Portfolio Sservicing Inc.aka ( SPS Inc. ) has FAILED TO COMPLY with a notice to VALIDATE DEBT in accordance with the specific MANDATES as codified at 15 USC 1692. Your company has issued a notice of foreclosure schedule for XX/XX/XXXX and we believe your company intend to serve and publish a sale under power notice on our property where there is no present legal right to do so. Your company is currently in violation of Georgia Residential mortgage fraud statutes. Furthermore, SPS Inc., its client, representative, or predecessor, are violating the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA ), 12 U.S.C. 2605 ( e ), the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act and The Fair Credit Reporting Act. And TILA. SPS. Inc. is operating in intentional defiance of OCGA 16-8-102, 16-8-104, and 16-8-105. SPS. Inc. officers and representative are fully aware that its client, agent or predecessor do not have a lien on our property of any kind, see EXHIBIT-R, and that we hold 100 % legal and equitable interest in our property. If they continue with the foreclosure action, it will constitute strong-arm seizure of property. see Deed of Record at EXHIBIT-F. ( a ) SPS. Inc., during the course of doing business has sent yet another non-judicial foreclosure notice with a sale date XX/XX/XXXXXX/XX/XXXX with ought having a legal or financial interest in our property. and, ( b ) SPS. Inc. have " RE-AGED '' a time barred charged-off and closed account to justify making the false representation to all three Credit Reporting Agencies that a debt is owed to SPS Inc. by us, when they know that to be untrue. ( c ) SPS. Inc. have slandered of title by publishing more than 12 statement about our property. The statement was untrue and they knew or should have known the statement was untrue. The statement was of a disparaging nature that impair the value of the property in the estimation of others. we have suffered and continue to suffer enormous damages. ( d ) ) SPS. Inc. have devised and implemented an illegal plan to seize property it know is unsecured. It is done by using mortgage documents that are void and you were specifically ordered by consent agreement, state and federal law not to use. ( i.e. unrecorded defective deed and destroyed notes ) This cease and desist demand is based upon a unsecured, charged-off, and closed account that is time barred. Under Georgia Law SPS Inc., its client, representative, or predecessor are subject to the following : 1. O.C.G.A. 16-8-102 Residential mortgage fraud Statute says : A person who " Files or causes to be filed with the official registrar of deeds of any county of this state any document such person knows to contain a deliberate misstatement. misrepresentation, or omission. '' can be subject to damages of {$100000.00}. I. NO DULY FILED, REORDED AND INDEXED DEED i.e., NO LIEN 2. The security deed associated with XXXX XXXX XXXX account # XXXX and XXXX referenced above, according to XXXX County GA official property recorde can not be, and was not, " duly filed, recorded and indexed for the following legal reasons : OCGA 44-2-21 Attestation Requirements - Mortgages and Deeds to Secure Debt The notary public serves as the official witness and must be one of the parties described under OCGA 44-2-21. " The unofficial witness may be any competent adult except a party to the deed or the notary public. '' A. The security deed resulting from an XX/XX/XXXX closing cited in paragraph 2 above with account number XXXX was, on or after closing, and at some point before recording, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX agent and representative XXXX XXXX, altered the security deed and the waver of borrowers rights, a fatel violation of Georgia statute in that he signing both documents under seal as the UNOFFICIAL witness. See Proof at EXHIBIT-A1 & A2 signature on last page of security deed and waver of borrows rights. ( then see EXHIBIT-A3 the signature of XXXX XXXX on various closing documents ) B. The " security deed '' and " the waver of borrowers rights '' are classified as contracts under seal, and under Georgia law In order to admit a mortgage to record and perfect a lien, it must be attested by or acknowledged before an officer as prescribed for the attestation or acknowledgment of deeds of bargain and sale ; and, in the case of real property, a security deed must also be attested or acknowledged by one additional unofficial witness. C. XXXX XXXX, as agent and representative for its principal, XXXX XXXX XXXX, a party to the transaction, was prohibited by O.C.G.A. 44-2-21 and 44-14-33 from signing as the official witness, unofficial witness, Notary or officer on the security deed. which is why XXXX County official property records by title search reports that no secured lien is held by anyone against our property. See ; The Supreme Court of Georgia Rules On Mortgage Attestation Question ; " An unattested or partially attested deed, even if recorded, can not provide constructive notice because it can not be " duly filed, recorded and indexed ''. also see " OCGA 44-14-39, which provides that [ a ] mortgage which is recorded... without due attestation.. .shall not be held to be notice to subsequent bona fide purchasers. Therefore, The security deed associated with XXXX XXXX XXXX account # XXXX and SPS Inc. account # XXXX referenced above was not and can not be " duly filed, recorded and indexed. Thus void as a matter of law. II. FAILURE TO TIMLY RECORD ASSIGNMENT Pursuant to OCGA 44-2-6. Recording bond for title, contracts, transfers, and assignments ; priority as to subsequent deeds taken without notice from same vendor. 3. Whereas, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX sold the Promissory NOTE associated with account number XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX ( day of closing ) to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. See ( EXHIBIT-E1, & E1a, Notes and see EXHIBIT E-2 allonge ( s ) - see date of 1st endorsement -- at that point XXXX owned the note. ) ) A. Although XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX closed the loan transaction and sold the note on XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX never made or recorded an assignment until ( 6 ) years later on XX/XX/XXXX. See EXHIBIT-E3 ( assignment of security deed ) B. If the Promissory Note is separated from the Security Instrument, the debt is UNSECURED. For the " secured '' status to be maintained, the Promissory Note and the security instrument ( Deed to Secure Debt ) must never be separated. C. If the Promissory Note was sold to other entities, the Note must be endorsed AND an Assignment of Deed to Secure Debt ( for each sale of Note ) must occur simultaneously for the Creditor to remain SECURED. D. Pursuant to OCGA 44-2-6 " Every bond for title, bond to reconvey realty, contract to sell or convey realty or any interest therein, and any and all transfers or assignments of realty shall be filed and recorded in the office of the clerk of the superior court of the county where the land referred to in the instrument is located. The filing and recording shall, from the date of filing, be notice of the interest and equity of the holder of the instrument in the property described therein. The filing and recording may be made at any time ; but such bond for title, bond to reconvey realty, contract to sell or convey realty or any interest therein, and any transfer or assignment of realty shall lose its priority over deeds, loan deeds, mortgages, bonds for titles, bonds to reconvey realty, contracts to sell or convey realty or any interest therein and any transfer or assignment of realty from the same vendor, obligor, transferor, or assignor which is executed subsequently but filed for record first and is taken without notice of the former instrument. '' note that in this case the promissory note was sold but no assignment was made and recorded for 6 years. E. Even if the security deed had been signed and attested to correctly, the fact still remains that XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX failed to perfect a lien where they failed to timely record a assignment Pursuant to OCGA 44-2-6. See EXHIBIT- E-3, ( the last and only assignment ). 4. Meanwhile, XXXX XXXX XXXX, on XX/XX/XXXX on behalf of the borrowers ' executed a deed to secure debt subsequent to XXXX XXXX XXXX 's defective deed, and XXXX in fact filed and recorded first in XXXX County property records a Deed to Secure Debt at deed book XXXX, page 560, Document # XXXX, of the official records, in the office of the Clerk of Superior Court of XXXX County, Georgia. Thus, at the time of cancellation it was the current DEED OF RECORD. A. Whereas, onXX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX caused to be recorded in XXXX County property records a cancellation of the DEED OF RECORD at deed book XXXX. Page 560 and Document # XXXX. See EXHIBIT-F ( lien release and Cancellation of the Deed of Record ) Wherefore, the cancelled DEED OF RECORD bearing the name XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, Pursuant to OCGA 44-2-6 is recognized under law as the legal holders of that parcel of property by way of 100 % legal and equitable interest therein with no other perfected liens currently attached thereto.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: GA
Zip: 30349
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-08-18
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-08-19
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: XX/XX/XXXX OnXX/XX/XXXX I obtained a first mortgage through XXXX XXXX XXXX of {$640000.00} on my house. The mortgage was subsequently been transferred to other entities, and is now held by Select Portfolio Servicing ( SPS ). The company information is as follows : SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX UT XXXX CUSTOMER SERVICE : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX www.spsservicing.com Mortgage payments to this company, and from the beginning of the mortgage to date, have never been late. This servicer acquired the loan on XX/XX/XXXXwith a balance of {$540000.00} at an interest rate of 2.75. As of this date, the balance is {$330000.00}. The current interest rate is 4 % There is no pre payment penalty and additional principal payments have been made and applied to the loan over the past 3 years. The initial monthly blended payment inXX/XX/XXXX was {$2800.00}. As ofXX/XX/XXXX the payment is {$2700.00}. The servicer never provided an amortization schedule since acquiring the loan, and same has not been provided for the rate ( which has been adjusting upwards ) at its current level. I believe the bulk additional principal payments have not been applied properly to reflect the interest calculation, based on the decreased overall mortgage amount and the remaining term.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: FL
Zip: 337XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-08-19
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-08-20
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: On XXXX XXXX, 2017 I received a Service Transfer letter from SPS ( Select Portfolio Servicing , Inc. ), stating that my refinanced mortgage account would be transferred to them from the previous servicer, XXXX. I thought this was great since I had written an abundance of complaints to CFPB about the egregious and criminal acts committed against me by XXXX. I researched SPS, and although the company did not receive good reviews at all, I thought that the change would give me a corrected, fresh start. I called SPS and spoke to a representative to get my new account number and she explained several ways I could make my XXXX payment. I was not waiting for the payment vouchers before paying my first and consistent payment for XXXX. I saw in one of the reviews that another new client waited and was sadly penalized. I was told to pay a little over {$640.00}, because I had an unapplied balance from my previous XXXX account. I discussed with the SPS representative that I would be making the payments by XXXX XXXX quick collect at the end of the month, by the XXXX, and the representative gave me the information needed in order to send the payment. I was told that I didnt need to call after I made the payment to SPS, that SPS will see the amount paid and apply the unapplied funds amount to complete the XXXX payment. I also discussed with the representative that the amounts derived by XXXX ; which led to the complaints to CFPB and led to my account being transferred to them ( SPS ), were erroneous. The representative documented and explained that our conversation would be investigated and the investigation would take up to 60 days after which I would be notified. Right after SPS processed my XXXX payment I received a confusing notice. Although SPS just received my account in the middle of XXXX AND SPS is still investigating the payments made to XXXX, SPS put my account in Default status??? Then in addition, I received a statement dated XXXX, after already making my first payment in full with SPS in XXXX. They have no listing of the payment I made AND the combining of the unapplied funds amount on the website. The statement reads : Loan Due Date XXXX Payment Due Date XXXX Amount - {$3200.00} Late Fees - {$390.00} How???? My monthly payment is less than {$940.00}. I have conformation of the payment for XXXX as paid. I pray Im not in another XXXX type company Please dont let that be.. Please Help AGAIN??? Awaiting Your Response, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: PA
Zip: 19146
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-08-20
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: No
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-08-07
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I applied for a loan modification but was denied. The written explanation does not make sense based on the information provided for loan modification
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: TX
Zip: 75237
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-08-07
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A