Date Received: 2017-07-23
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: My ex-wife was awarded the home in a divorce. She was ordered to sell the home or refinance it and remove my name from the mortgage with in 4 years. She did not do so. She is behind on the mortgage several months. in XXXX of 2017 she entered into an agreement with the bank that she would make 6 months of payments on time. I got control of the house in XXXX 2017 through the contempt order from the court. I have tried to remedy this situation by getting a real estate agency as well as finding an investor for this property. I am not in financial position to be able to carry this loan and am willing to work with the lender to settle this issue with a short sale. The problem that I am having is that Select Portfolio Servicing INC. is the mortgage servicer on the referenced account. I have submitted my proposal for a short sale to Select Portfolio Servicing INC and was told that the investor would not accept a short sale due to the fact that My Ex-wife was in default of her agreement with them. I have spoken to Select Portfolio Servicing INC and requested to speak to the investor and explain my unique situation. They refuse to give me information on the investor and tell me that they do not have that information. My question to them is if you do not have the information then how can you tell me that they will not accept a short sale. I requested information on who they spoke to as well as a phone number and an address of the investor for this account.Select Portfolio Servicing INC will not give me this information so that I can settle this issue with the bank. I feel that this is bad business practice and that they are interfering in a good faith attempt to settle a debt that my Ex-Wife failed to do. I am doing all I can to take care of this and have spent a lot of money in legal fees just to get to this point. Select Portfolio Servicing INC has many complaint filed against them and they need to be looked into!
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: OR
Zip: 97305
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-07-23
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-07-24
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: SPS is claiming they have responded on XX/XX/17 to the CFPB c omplaint we file d on XX/XX/17 . ( yes they are claiming they responded the same day. i have never seen a lender respond to a CFPB complaint the same day it was filed. ) Neither we, nor the seller, nor the CFPB has received a response from SPS. We spo ke to SPS prior to today they state they must receive a complete short sale package within 30 days of the foreclosure date. And now all of the sudden, today, we have been told they have new guidelines stating they must receive the complete short sale package at least 60 days prior to the foreclosure date. They are claiming this is an investor guideline and it has always been this way. ( I find it funny that SPS can not even keep track of the LIES they tell fro m one ph one call to the next. ) We have just spoken with XXXX , the investor, and they have stated this is not true. In addition, we have closed more th an 2400 short sale SEVERAL HUNDRED of th em with XXXX , and the guidelines have never been 60 days. Wh y is SPS makin g up guidelines? Is this because the seller is XXXX ?
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-07-25
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-07-23
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I have submitted multiple complaints and select portfolio refuses to address them- they have not provided legal standing to foreclose they have produced false documentation of which I have provided proof that they have forged documents - on XX/XX/XXXX compl # XXXX I provided information that they falsified a deed as well as a California Acknowledgment they still have refused to answers this complaint. Why wo n't they answer this complaint. I also submitted on XX/XX/XXXX and on XX/XX/XXXX # s XXXX and XXXX both complaints were also not addressed they simply provided the same documentation on both complaints however that documentation does NOT answer any of my concerns or complaints they are threatening foreclosure and do not have legal standing- they need to answer why they have falsified documents and produced a fake California acknowledgment they need to redact the foreclosure immediately
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-07-23
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-07-24
Issue: Incorrect information on your report
Subissue: Account status incorrect
Consumer Complaint: Dear Sir or Madam, This is a follow up to a previous complaint that I filed with the CFPB on or around XX/XX/XXXX regarding my mortgage loans with Select Portfolio Servicing , Inc. ( SPS ). SPS responded to my complaint on or around XX/XX/XXXX. SPS ' response mischaracterized part of my complaint and did not address certain other parts of my complaint. Below is bullet-point summary of my complaint followed by a more detailed background and explanation of the complaint. Summary -My first and second position mortgage loans on my home were sold to SPS several years ago. I wanted to restructure my loan but was not in default of the loans. SPS unfairly declined to consider my HAMP loan modification application for my second position loan, although I applied for HAMP loan modification for both loans simultaneously.. -SPS then considered me for a loan modification through one of its own programs. I WAS NOT IN DEFAULT AT THE TIME AND WAS CURRENT ON BOTH LOANS. As mentioned before, I just wanted to restructure the loans. SPS representatives misled me to believe that by paying the loan modification trial payments on time, I would remain in current status on both loans. For my second position loan, the trial period began XX/XX/XXXX. Before I entered the trial, I spoke to an SPS representative ON A RECORDED CALL, and I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE REPRESENTATIVE WHETHER I WOULD REMAIN CURRENT ON MY CURRENT LOAN IF I MADE THE TRIAL PAYMENTS IN A TIMELY MANNER. THE REPRESENTATIVE SAID I WOULD INDEED REMAIN CURRENT ON THE CURRENT LOAN. Further, the representative said that I could make the first trial payment with the representative, and I would keep me current through XXXX. However, I was then reported 30 and then 60 days late on my credit that loan. Essentially the same thing happened with my first position loan, for which the trial period commenced on XX/XX/XXXX ( I made the first trial payment in XX/XX/XXXX and was told that I would remain current on my original loan through XXXX ). Further, MORTGAGE STATEMENTS SPS SENT TO ME DURING THE TRIAL PERIODS FOR BOTH LOANS STATE : " Our records indicate that you have entered into a Trial Modification Plan. This plan temporarily supersedes your original loan payment arrangements... Prior to your agreement your contractual monthly payment was {$2200.00}, however, please note that you are required to remit payments in the amounts and o the dates set forth in your Forbearance / Trial Plan Agreement. '' ( See the attached mortgage statement as an example ). SPS thereby clearly represented that each trial plan " supersedes [ my ] original loan payment arrangements, '' which was consistent with the representations that its representatives made to me prior to my entering the trial plans. I discovered I was reported late after making the first trial payments on both loans. I called SPS and the SPS representative said that he/she would initiate the process of removing those late payment marks. THEREAFTER, I PAID THE FULL ORIGINAL MONTHLY LOAN PAYMENT ( NOT THE LOWER TRIAL PAYMENT ) THE REMAINDER OF THE TRIAL PERIOD FOR EACH LOAN, BUT WAS REPORTED LATE ON SOME OF THOSE PAYMENTS. Enclosed with this complaint are payment histories for both loans showing that I consistently made the full original monthly loan payments until the first trial payment on each loan, and then consistently made the full original monthly payments after those first trial payments. -As CFPB knows, SPS is responsible for representations its employees, agents, and representatives make on SPS ' behalf. SPS is responsible for the statements by its representatives that I would remain current on my loans during the trial plans as long as I made the trial payments in a timely manner. SPS is also responsible for the clear statements that each trial plan " supersedes [ my ] current original loan payment arrangements. '' And as mentioned, ( i ) I was current on both loans before I entered the trial plans ; ( ii ) SPS reported me to the credit bureaus as being late on loan payments after I made the first trial payments ; ( iii ) an SPS rep said that those late marks would be removed ; ( iv ) I made the full original monthly payments the remainder of the trial period ; and ( v ) SPS nonetheless reported me late on those latter payments. -After the trial periods, I received notices that SPS approved me for loan modifications. But the modified payment plan for the second position loan -- which was under an SPS loan modification program as opposed to the federal HAMP -- would result in me paying significantly more over the duration of the second position loan than under the current structure of that loan. While the interest rate for that loan would be lowered by two percentage points, the modification plan would add 480 months ( 40 years ) to my loan term, even though I am 12 years into my current loan term. In SPS ' response to my original complaint filed with the CFPB, SPS mischaracterized this aspect of my complaint by indicating that I was asserting that the monthly payment amount would be more under the loan modification as compared to the current loan terms. My complaint is that the total amount that would be paid over the course of the modified loan would be exorbitantly higher ( well-night usurious ) than the total amount paid under the current loan structure. -There are numerous online consumer complaints about SPS that are similar to mine, and many consumers have stated that SPS is trying to drive consumers into default and loan modifications that result in significantly higher total payments by consumers over the course of the loan. -SPSs is engaging in deceptive and unfair acts and practices in violation of the Dodd-Frank Act, and SPS is in violation of the Truth in Lending Act. Detailed Background : I have first and second position mortgage loans on my home that were sold to SPS several years ago. In XX/XX/XXXX, I applied for a loan modification under the federal HAMP. I was not in default on either loan ( see the enclosed bank statements showing my consistent payments to SPS ), but simply wanted to restructure my loan for more affordable payments. In early XX/XX/XXXX, I received a notice from SPS claiming that my application was incomplete for a bogus reason ; specifically, it was either that I needed to provide home owners association fee information or the property was ineligible because its a rental ( I do not pay HOA fees, the property is not a rental property, and nothing on my application indicated either ). I contacted SPS to explain and to ask the basis for determining that I needed to provide HOA info or that my property was a rental. I was given a no valid reason. But by then, the federal HAMP had expired. I believe SPS intentionally delayed my application. I called the federal HAMP line to complain, and after a few days a representative reached out to SPS by phone while I was on the phone with the federal HAMP representative. We spoke with an SPS representative, who said that SPS has comparable loan modification programs and that SPS would consider me for those. Relying on that statement, I decided not to proceed with a complaint and to proceed with being considered for SPSs loan modification programs. Ultimately, SPS considered me for a HAMP loan modification for the first position loan, but not for the second position loan, although my loan modification applications for both loans were virtually identical and filed simultaneously. SPS has no valid basis for not considering my second position loan for modification under HAMP. In XX/XX/XXXX, SPS sent a notice stating that I had been approved for a trial payment period on my second position loan starting XX/XX/XXXX, and that if I make all trial payments in a timely manner, my account would remain in current status and SPS would then propose a loan modification. In XX/XX/XXXX, I accepted the trial payment terms and made the first payment, and was told that the payment would go towards the XX/XX/XXXX payment. In XX/XX/XXXX, SPS sent a notice of approval for a trial payment plan on my first position loan, to start on XX/XX/XXXX. As with my second position loan, I was told that my account would remain in current status as long as I made the trial payments in a time manner. I accepted the trial payment plan and made the first trial payment. At some point in XXXX, I noticed that my both my first position loan was reported as 30 days late to the credit bureaus. I contacted SPS, and eventually a representative stated that he/she would open an internal inquiry / request to remove the derogatory reports from my credit profile. FROM THEM ON, I MADE THE FULL, ORIGINAL ( PRE-TRIAL ) MONTHLY PAYMENT AMOUNTS ON BOTH LOANS TO BE SAFE. However, SPS subsequently reported me as 60 days late for some of those payments on both loans, although I consistently paid the full original monthly amounts due. In addition, after the trial periods, SPS sent notices that I was approved for loan modification programs. However, each loan modification would result in my paying significantly higher total amount over the course of the modified loans than under the current loan terms. Ive looked online at consumer complaints about SPS, and there are numerous complaints that consumers encountered similar deceptive and unfair acts and practices by SPS. As many other consumers have complained, I believe that SPS is deliberately trying to drive consumers into default and loan modifications that result in higher total costs over the course of the loan. XXXX I kindly request that the CFPB inquiry into SPSs practices not only with respect to my mortgage loans, but also SPSs practices with respect to loan modifications in general. I greatly appreciate your consideration of my complaint and request. Best regards, XXXX XXXX XXXX
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: MD
Zip: 20901
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-07-24
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-07-24
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: In XX/XX/XXXXwe refinanced our home with XXXX XXXX XXXX, making bi-weekly payments throughout the years until XX/XX/XXXX. In XX/XX/XXXX we were advised our mortgage was being transferred to Select Portfolio Servicing ( SPS ) with no interruptions or changes to our current agreement with XXXX. However, in XX/XX/XXXX we contacted Select Portfolio Servicing ( SPS ) after noticing a payment had not been deducted from our bank. We were told at that point by SPS no payment was due until XX/XX/XXXX because we had overpaid XXXX. We requested to continue paying our monthly note and the " over payment '' be applied to the principal balance amount. We were told that was n't possible and the amount due in XX/XX/XXXX would be the daily compounded interest plus the monthly amount due, which will be in excess of over {$2000.00}. We have however continued to pay our monthly note only to have the principal balance increasing monthly. We have contacted several agencies to help with this situation only to be told unless we are at risk for foreclosure or behind in our payments we do n't qualify for any assistance in resolving this matter.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: MI
Zip: 48234
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-07-24
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-07-23
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: This complaint has been batted back and forth with SPS saying that they have serviced the loan properly and legally. This entire issue cumulated from an agreement for a Trial Loan Modification that was mediated through Nevada 's required Loan Mediation process. This process took a total of three face to face meetings with a mediator, a SPS representative and myself. During these mediation meetings I provided the mediator and the SPS representative with my income, payments and budget. These meetings formulated the agreed to payment of {$1100.00}. A payment which I would be able to afford. I made this monthly payment, as agreed, to SPS from XX/XX/XXXX thru XX/XX/XXXX, a total of 8 payments. When I had made my 3rd monthly payment in XXXX I figured that the temporary loan modification had automatically became a permanent loan modification. After all I continued to make the agreed payment and SPS continued to accept the payment of {$1100.00} for an additional 5 months beyond the temporary loan modification period that ended in XXXX. I never received any paperwork nor was contacted by SPS stating anything was wrong with my Loan Modification during this 8 month period. With the new year and thinking about taxes and setting budgets and having paid my XXXX payment to SPS, I contacted SPS to see when I would be receiving a statement that would indicate the payments I have paid and if I would be receiving permanent loan modification paperwork for my files. I was shocked to be told that my loan modification had expired back in XX/XX/XXXX and that SPS had sent me my final agreement via overnight mail which shows that it was left at my front door in XXXX and that it was not returned by the due date of XXXX. I advised them that I had not received any piece of mail left at my doorstep in XXXX. SPS advised me that the loan modification that was agreed to was no longer valid and that I would have to contact my Customer Relations Manager. A few days after my phone call I received my Cashiers Check for the XXXX payment of {$1100.00} I filed a complaint thru CFPB just after that and then received a " revised '' temporary loan modification agreement for {$1700.00} approximately several weeks later. This revised payment is above the amount sustainable for me to make and an increase of some 53 % of my originally agreed to amount of {$1100.00} I am of the opinion that SPS has not serviced this loan in good faith, nor acted in good faith and have taken advantage of my current situation. SPS placed all the beans in one basket by sending the one piece of paper that would have made my temporary loan modification into a permanent loan modification and leaving it on my doorstep. Apparently SPS did not feel that this form was that important to require a signature or they hoped that it would just get lost so they could collect more funds out of me while still denying my permanent loan modification. This form apparently only required my signature approving the loan modification. My continued payments in XXXX, XXXX and XXXX were accepted by SPS although according to SPS the loan modification was deemed expired in XXXX. Why then did SPS accept my payment if the loan modification had expired? Does n't SPS and I actually have an agreed to permanent loan modification by having made the payments of {$1100.00} after the temporary period and SPS accepting those payments? How did SPS come up with an increased payment some 53 % higher than what was previously agreed to when nothing in my financial situation has changed since our original mediation meeting?
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: NV
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-07-23
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-07-21
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: My mortgage servicer is Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc or " SPS ''. In my monthly statements I have been charged {$190.00} for " unpaid late charges '' and {$290.00} for " other charges and fees. '' I was not sure what these charges were for as I am currently up to date on my mortgage. I contacted SPS and the representative advised that part of these charges were transferred over from my previous servicer, XXXX, when the mortgage was assigned to SPS in XX/XX/XXXX. She advised that when the mortgage was transferred there were {$190.00}. XXXX in late charges and {$150.00} in " other charges. '' She also claimed that there were three additional late charges of {$29.00} for XXXX, XXXX and XXXX XXXX and three {$15.00} inspections for the same months. However, I do not think this is correct and that these charges may be a mistake. When my mortgage was transferred to SPS, I was current on my payments and had taken care of any previous fees. I did fall behind on my mortgage a couple of years ago and then reinstated it. When I reinstated my mortgage the representatives advised that I had paid all of my late charges, so I do not understand why I am now being charged for unpaid late charges for those months in XXXX. In addition, the representative from SPS assured me that the {$15.00} inspection fees would be waived.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: PA
Zip: 19134
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-07-21
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-07-21
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: this problem began in XX/XX/XXXX, my wife took out a mortgage with XXXX XXXX XXXX with an interest rate of 10.5 percent and ceiling of 17.5 percent and they quickly sold the mortgage to XXXX XXXX and that is when the problem began. I hired an attorney from XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and when it came to going to court XXXX XXXX sold the loan the day before the court date to XXXX. to make a long story short the day before XXXX was to show up for court they sold the loan to XXXX XXXX XXXX. and it started all over again and XXXX XXXX XXXX sold the loan to Select Portfolio Service ( SPS ) the day before the court date. SPS has had the loan over 2 years and in trying to modify the loan to get the interest rate in line I have never talked to the same person twice. we filled out all the papers for the modification and before they could get back to us certain parts were outdated and had to be redone. Eventually they accepted the modification after two years of fighting to get it done but we have yet to receive anything in writing pertaining to the modification and have not done anything in a timely manner and the people we spoke to at SPS ( who was never the same person ) never noted the file and we had to repeat everything again. they say they have everything needed for the modification and a decision will be made in 30 days. We hired XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX out of California who stated they looked at the files and feel it is predatory lending and forclosure fraud by all of these companies. they doubt if any of these companies ever recorded the change in going from one bank to the next.We have been in this house since XX/XX/XXXX
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: FL
Zip: 33713
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-07-21
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-07-20
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I APPLIED FOR HARDSHIP ASSISTANCE AND WAS DENIED DUE TO THEY CAN NOT FIND A FEASIBLE MORTGAGE PAYMENT. MY HUSBAND AND I ARE REQUESTING FOR HELP DUE TO MEDICAL PROBLEMS, MY HUSBAND WAS DIAGNOSED WITH XXXX XXXX. WHILE WE WERE DEALING WITH THAT WE EMPTIED OUR SAVINGS PAYING OUR MORTGAGE, OTHER BILLS AND MEDICAL. WE GOT TO THE POINT OF RUNNING OUT OF OUR SAVINGS AND KNEW WE NEEDED HELP SO WE HAVE REACHED OUT TO OUR LENDER AND WAS DENIED AGAIN DUE TO COULD NOT CREATE AN AFFORDABLE PAYMENT. HOWEVER, IN THE SAME BREATHE THE DID FIND SOMETHING AFFORDABLE WHICH WAS A REPAYMENT PLAN. THIS REPAYMENT PLAN THAT THEY ARE SAYING IS MORE AFFORDABLE THAN RE-AMORTIZING MY LOAN OVER 40 YEARS WITH A 4 % INTEREST RATE. THE RE-PAYMENT PLAN SPS IS STATING IS AFFORDABLE IS {$3900.00}, HOW IS THAT FEASIBLE OR AFFORDABLE THAN A MODIFICATION?!?!?!?!???? OUR FIXED HOUSEHOLD INCOME NET IS {$4400.00}, CAR NOTE {$300.00}, CREDIT CARDS {$150.00} = {$4300.00} IS AFFORDABLE TO THEM????? HOW IS {$68.00} AFFORDABLE TO PAY FOR GROCERIES, UTILITIES, INSURANCE AND MY PRESCRIPTIONS???? I RAN MY MORTGAGE INFORMATION THROUGH A CALCULATOR AND WHAT IS AFFORDABLE IS A 4 %, 40 YEAR LOAN WITH THE DELINQUENT AMOUNT ADDED TO THE BACK OF THE LOAN WHICH WOULD BE ABOUT {$2100.00}. IT IS CLEAR THAT SPS IS TRYING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF MY HUSBAND AND I SINCE WE ARE XXXX YEARS OF AGE. THIS IS THE EPITOME OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ELDERLY. I WILL NOT BE VICTIMIZE BY SPS AND HAVE ALSO FORWARDED THIS COMPLAINT TO MY STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL. I HAVE OWNED MY HOME FOR OVER 27 YEARS AND NEED HELP DUE TO MY HUSBANDS MEDICAL ISSUES. MY INVESTOR HAS MADE MORE THAN ENOUGH ON US IN INTEREST TO MODIFY OUR MORTGAGE TERMS.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: NJ
Zip: 085XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-07-20
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-07-20
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: This complaint is my 5th complaint on the same general case. The previous complaint numbers are ; XXXX which explained what happened. XXXX asks six questions that I would like the CFPB to ask the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX or if they say they have no knowledge then please ask whoever they suggest is best equipped to answer these six questions. XXXX is really a complaint against the CFBD in that there is no way that I can get a hold of and talk to a real person about my case. I live in XXXX, XXXX and therefore can not reach you by phone or fax and you apparently have no e-mail address. XXXX authorizes my full blood sister, XXXX XXXX who was born on XXXX XXXX, XXXX in XXXX, California to discuss my case with This complaint is to notify you that a major crime was committed by the XXXX XXXX XXXX or who ever sold my note and deed of trust to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. The details are spelled out in the attachment. But basically I borrowed {$150000.00} from XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX in XXXX XXXX against my house located at XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX Washington. This loan was made at 70 % of value. This means the house was appraised for {$220000.00} and the loan was made at 70 % of this evaluation. The XXXX XXXX XXXX bought XXXX XXXX in XXXX, and then foreclosed against me in XXXX of XXXX for non-payment of my mortgage loan and took possession of my house. They informed me that I no longer owned the house and hired a property manager to manage the house who then changed the locks and told my tenant, XXXX XXXX that I no longer owned the house. I quickly wrote a letter to the XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX in which I told them that they did not follow the legal procedures required for a non-judicial foreclosure. And I threaten to hire a lawyer and sue them if they did not give me my house back within two weeks. In less than two weeks their property manager who I assumed was working for the XXXX XXXX XXXX called me to tell me to come to his office and get the keys to my house. Now the bank may dispute my story, but I will say under oath that the banks property manager who I understood to represent the XXXX XXXX XXXX told me that The XXXX XXXX XXXX has decided to give you your house back and write off the loan as a bad debt. If this is not true then what is their explanation as to why I was given the keys to my house without requiring me to sign a new loan agreement or to make any payments what so ever. And let me also answer the question as to why the XXXX XXXX XXXX would suddenly give me my house free and clear of debt? This would appear to be a very good question and I have a very good answer. 1. As noted above my house was appraised in XXXX at {$220000.00}. But by XX/XX/XXXX the value had collapsed to under {$100000.00}. So to put it in banker 's language my house was underwater by at least {$60000.00}. To put my house up for sale the XXXX would have had to invest at least {$20000.00} in fix up costs plus pay the taxes and insurance for maybe several years. And the XXXX was suddenly faced with the ownership of millions of houses like mine all over the US which were like alligators eating into the already low capital that supported the XXXX XXXX very survival. So they took the most prudent action and just gave the owner his house back. I know they did this in many thousands of cases. So they did not give me my house back out of any sense of compassion or pity for me. They did it out necessity to keep from going bankrupt. This is before they were bailed out by the Feds. Now getting back to my story, I took the XXXX XXXX property manager 's words to mean that I did n't have to make any more mortgage payments and should consider this action by the XXXX as a gift. So I returned to my house and informed my tenant, XXXX XXXX of what had just happened and told him, to resume considering me as the owner of the house and to resume paying me rent -- which he did. So I continued to operate the house as the debt free owner from XX/XX/XXXX until XXXX of XX/XX/XXXXor over 8.5 years when suddenly another lender, The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX represented by XXXX XXXX and XXXX tacked a Notice of Default on the front and back door of my house. They too may have acted illegally in doing that. Please investigate and let me know your findings. Now let me point out that Washington State has a Statute of Limitations law which says that if a lender takes no legal action to collect a debt for six years then it can no longer do so. They also have a gift law that says once you give real property to someone as a gift that you can not ask for it back. And my third legal defense point is that there are very specific legal rules that a bank has to follow to carry out what is called a non-judicial foreclosure. And the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX of XXXX like XXXX XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXXhas not followed these specific legal rules. My law suit : In XXXX of XXXX I filed a law suit in the Superior Court of XXXX County, Washington State against the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX in which I stated the above described three legal reasons as to why these three financial institutions were acting improperly and illegally to foreclose against me. And I asked the Court to give me : 1. Clear title to my house without any debt 2. All of my legal fees which at this point = about {$11000.00} 3. Damages in the amount of {$900.00} per month since XX/XX/XXXX when they improperly and illegally tacked the Notice of Default to the front and back door of my house. This action caused my tenant to quite paying me rent and after three more months she moved out. These damages now amount to 16 months x {$900.00} or {$14000.00}. On XX/XX/XXXXthe defendants in this law suit asked the judge to require me to pay them {$1400.00} per month while waiting for the judge to hear and decide this case. He denied their request. So I do not have to pay them anything until the judge hears and decides this case. Now last week when I read the defendants ( the three financial institutions ) response to my law suit, and also went back and re-read their Notice of Default It suddenly hit me that perhaps we are overlooking a very important legal fact. And that is we have been assuming that we are now dealing with the same bank or financial institution that gave me the original loan and in fact we are not. In fact, according to the Notice of Default, on or about XX/XX/XXXX a fraudulent crime was committed. The bank that gave me the loan in XX/XX/XXXXand then foreclosed on me in XX/XX/XXXXand took repossession of my house for about two weeks and then gave me my house back as a gift without requiring that I sign a new loan or start making and monthly payments is not the same bank as the 3 defendants in this lawsuit. And that is because-according to the Notice of Default on XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX who must have been representing the XXXX XXXX XXXX which bought XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX knowingly and fraudulently sold what they knew was a bad loan or actually a loan that they had written off as uncollectable in XX/XX/XXXX to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX FKA. Again it is clearly a crime to sell something which you know is of no value to someone else for a lot of money. Therefore the 3 defendants in this case do not know the true background in this case and they do not have the files to defend themselves or to refute me. They know nothing about what happened in XXXX. But they should be asking questions of the XXXX XXXX XXXX as to why they foreclosed against me in XXXX, took possession of my house and then gave it back to me without requiring me to sign a new loan or make any payments. And then why did the XXXX XXXX XXXX not take any further legal action against me or make any attempt to collect on this loan for nearly three years after which they fraudulently sold it to The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX FKA.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: WA
Zip: 98029
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-08-03
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A