Date Received: 2017-06-16
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I have been attempting to get my home sold on a short sale for 21 months. I keep submitting complains and they respond but it is not resulting in an approval letter for any of the short sale offers being Approved. The latest issue is the bank did a BPO about 2 months ago and it came back at XXXX and we had a short sale offer for XXXX and the bank rejected the offer saying they want a counter offer. How can you reject an offer on market value and you are the one that determined the market value? This is outrageous! The other issue is that it take almost 3 or 4 weeks to get an approval or rejection letter. We have already lost one buyer because the approval process takes so long. We just submitted it again today ( X/XX/2017 ) telling them that the buyer is not going to pay over market value for this property.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: VA
Zip: 23602
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-06-16
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-06-07
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: my mortage is serviced by select portfolio servicing aka investor XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I have not received acall in 4 months fore a loss mitigation option first house was foreclosed then bank resinded the sale of house I received aphone call thatit was resinded and a letter from bank but the house was never put back to my name like sps promised 5 months later house goes up for foreclosure on XXXX now imhere crying fowl feel like sps committed a violation and wants toforeclose on my home withnot giving me the opportunity to keep my home pleaseinvestigate and help with my issue losing home with nohelp offerd thanks XXXX XXXX is my nam e thanks
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: 93722
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-06-07
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-06-06
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I have been working on mitigation options wi th SPS sin ce XXXX XXXX XXXX . I have supplied all documents requested in a timely manner, however SPS is constantly asking for additional information, asking to re-send information. Then on XXXX XXXX XXXX they inform me that the review will be continue because the file was not received 37 days prior to the foreclosure which is currently set for XXXX XXXX , XXXX . The documents they requested were sent to them on XXXX XXXX , XXXX and they failed to inform me that there was a deadline for those documents to be sent in. Additionally, I am not confident tha t SPS has the legal rights to foreclose as they may have received the loan transfer after default nor can I find a recorded assignment of the deed of trust.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: WA
Zip: 98203
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-06-06
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-06-14
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: This is an addendum to the complaint already filed on this same subject and is further explained in the attachment. SPS has responded to the last complaint, and again has allowed XXXX to convince them that the force-placed insurance amounts they stole from my account in XXXX of XXXX and XXXX of XXXX were valid. My bank statement clearly shows that I had paid this insurance premium in XXXX of XXXX , and XXXX had been properly informed of this by my insurance company. However, they still pulled over {$2300.00} from my account in XXXX of XXXX and again in XXXX of XXXX and those funds were never placed back in my account. They also responded that the illegal and unauthorized and unjustified charges totaling {$3800.00} were allowed charges related to bankruptcy and foreclosure. These charges occurred between the dates of XXXX of XXXX through XXXX of XXXX . THERE WAS NO FORECLOSURE OR BANKRUPTCY IN ANY WAY ASSOCIATED WITH ME OR THIS LOAN AS OF THOSE DATES! Even the default date on this loan was not until XXXX or XXXX of XXXX , so I guess we 're supposed to believe that XXXX was psychic and went ahead and started assessing charges 4 years prior to my default to apply toward my foreclosure? But the addendum sent to SPS yesterday also includes the fact that, according to the payment records provided by XXXX or SPS, the first payment I made to the previous servicer, XXXX XXXX XXXX , was never applied to my account. That is detailed in the attached letter and supported by the attached documentation.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: SC
Zip: 29072
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-06-14
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-06-15
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: In XXXX 2017 , SPS was sent a Congressional Inquiry from Congresswoman XXXX XXXX 's office about issues related to their erro neous assertion that they have servicing rights and therefore a financial interest in our home. SPS has yet to respond to the Congressional Inquiry but has scheduled a foreclosure sale for XXXX XXXX , 2017 .
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: 90043
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-06-15
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-06-12
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Dear Banking and Financial Dept Re garding Primary resident. XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX GA XXXX . XXXX XXXX and ( SPS Select Portfolio Service ) ref used to provide a monthly Statement. I am writing this letter because of the unlaw act from both financial Intuitions. XXXX XXXX and ( SPS Select Portfolio Service ) will not provide mine XXXX Mortgage Statement. XXXX XXXX refused because ( SPS Select Portfolio Service ) is now servicing my mortgage loa n. ( a s of XXXX XXXX , 2017 ). XXXX XXXX is still my mortgage holder bu t ( SPS Select Portfolio Service ) is se rvicing mine Loan. I called XXXX XXXX last week for XXXX Mortage Statement and printout of payment history. The representative stated XXXX will not able to provide me with XXXX Mortgage Statement or further statements. Because, XXXX XXXX transferred my account to be ser vice by ( SPS Select Portfolio Service ) XXXX XXXX , 2017 XXXX XXXX emailed me a copy of my payment history, ( Up to XXXX 2017 ) which in excellent standing ( NO Lates ) I contact ( SPS Select Portfolio Service ) on XXXX / XXXX / 2017 for mine XXXX Mortgage. Spoke with ID XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX supervisor, both stated I will never receive a Monthly Statement, because of old 10 years BK. I informed both representatives XXXX XXXX sent Mortgage statement every month. I informe d both ( SPS Select Portfolio Service ) representatives, that XXXX XXXX always provided detail monthly statements, XXXX XXXX , a supervisor stated I will need to call in every month for details. Plus I will NEVER receive a detail monthly statement. In additions, It 's my responsibility to call ( SPS Select Portfolio Service ) each month for my payments. SPS Select Portfolio Service will let know mine payment amount by PHONE ONLY. I also request f or ( SPS Select Portfolio Service ) n ot share my personal information
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: GA
Zip: 30087
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-06-12
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-06-07
Issue: Closing on a mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Duplex XX/XX/XXXX {$10000.00} purchase price XX/XX/XXXX per manent financing -payoff of {$48000.00} rehab loan {$6300.00} paid {$47000.00} loan amount - {$360.00} payments - {$370.00} annual taxes - {$590.00} annual insurance {$69000.00} payments XX/XX/XXXX streamline refinance {$43000.00} balance - {$290.00} payments for 84 months. - {$270.00} remaining {$15000.00} payments XX/XX/XXXX refinance - XXXX payoff - {$9300.00} plus {$3900.00} 'cash out ' to commerce - {$590.00} to XXXX XXXX {$54000.00} payments {$1000.00} in escrow account {$1000.00} unapplied funds {$18.00} fee returned {$15.00} late fee {$410.00} payment returned XX/XX/XXXX {$540.00} {$560.00} {$530.00} checks returned in XXXX No payment in XX/XX/XXXX XXXX foreclosure notice ( news clip ping from a lawyer ).
Dozens of calls and faxes to cancel XXXX foreclosure. Modification offer increased {$360.00} payment to nearly $ XXXX . Did not sign. Request for terms reducing the payment. No response as of XXXX mailed {$2300.00} payments - All returned. ( {$500.00} application fee sent XXXX XXXX never collected ) foreclosed 2 days after denial ( ( by XXXX XXXX ? ). XXXX was n't late yet. Reinstatement quite -less than 24 hours prior to sale- showed ONE late fee.Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: MO
Zip: 64081
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-06-08
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-06-14
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: We have currently applied for a loan modification with SPS, on XXXX / XXXX / 2017 at XXXX is when our problem had first occured when the lender had asked for the home owners proof of occupancy as in a utility bill. ON XXXX / XXXX / 2017 at XXXX we sent over the document that was requested and also spoke to someone at SPS that advised us they have received our document and our account was now with the underwriting team pending further decision. Now on the same day eight minutes latter SPS call s our phone and ask for the same document they just told me they received and is being review? So we had sent it again with no complaint on the same day XXXX / XXXX / 2017 at XXXX . Now we let a couple days go by and we receive another call on XXXX / XXXX / 2017 at XXXX requesting the same utility bill arguing we had never sent ir before so of course again it was sent into their office via fax. This same issue continued with them asking for this document and then saying it was not received on each and every single one of these dates XXXX / XXXX / 2017 XXXX , XXXX / XXXX / 2017 XXXX /2017 XXXX , XXXX / XXXX / 2017 XXXX until finally on XXXX / XXXX / 2017 XXXX SPS called in with a denial for the modification stating we failed to send in the required documentation needed and also stating they had no records of communicating with us or receiving anything that was needed to push this to the next step.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: NJ
Zip: 07719
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-06-14
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-05-17
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: In a deed of trust agreement there is instituted a trustee to act as the courts thereby bypassing a standard foreclosure procedure in the court system. The non-judicial foreclosure process was designed to help alleviate the burden to the court system over the standard mortgage foreclosure process. Since the trustee is taxed with acting on behalf of the court it was designed and substantiated in the [ XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ] Supreme Court ruling that the trustee was to be independent due to the fact that it repre sents the court. Thus the trustee is given the presumption of correctness as it is to be independent and arms length throughout the life of the deed of trust contract. When the bank lobbyists wrote Senate Bill 1638 i n XX/XX/XXXX , it was to quietly strip the independence away from the trustee therein setting the stage for any deed of trust to be able to be foreclosed on whether someone was current on their payments or not. In fact this allowed someone who paid cash for their property and had never even entered into a loan agreement to be foreclosed on. Based on the fact that the trustee is fraudulent and owned, controlled and manipulated by the banks or fraudulent law firms they are able to file fraudulent paper and submit this paper to the County Recorders Office with no oversight as to any legitimacy to the validity of any information contained in the papers being filed. This fraud against the court has been going on with EVERY document being filed for a deed of trust agreement and for ANY and EVERY non-judicial foreclosure procedure in the state of CA since XX/XX/XXXX . The banks are in fact committing fraud by concealing that the Trustee is not independent and incapable of looking out for the best interests of the borrower in the Deed of Trust. When the bank uses a Deed of Trust agreement, knowing that the Trustee is not independent as described by the CA Supreme Court in XX/XX/XXXX ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , the bank is in fact committing fraud against the borrower at the inception of the contract which makes the contract VOID. Due to the fact that the Trustee is not independent ( as the CA State Suprem e Court ruled trustees are to be independent and arms length in a Deed of Trust contract ) the bank uses the Trustee and the Power of Sales Clause via CA Civ Code 2924, to file fraudulent documents with the court. Without the independence of the trustee in a deed of trust agreement, there is no valid deed of trust agreement as it is outlined in the Power of Sale clause and CA Civil Code 2924, et al. The lack of independence defies the rules of the deed of trust and allows fraudulent paperwork to be filed and no oversight to any wrongdoing by a financial institution or a trustee in a non-judicial foreclosure procedure. Therein, this allows any bank or fraudulent trustee to illegally foreclose on anyone, anytime, anywhere without reason or validity to any paperwork. There is no party looking out for the interest of the property owner and the courts have handed over the justice system to the Trustee in a Non-Judicial foreclosure action. Because the courts have entrusted the Trustee and the CA Supreme Court has ruled that the Trustee is to be independent in a Deed of Trust agreement, the judicial power of correctness has been given to all of the documents that are filed into the court in a non-judicial foreclosure procedure. The reason a bank or other party is able to file whatever paperwork they choose in order to foreclose on someone is due to a XX/XX/XXXX rule that changed the rules to the Power of Sale clause. This rule comes from the XX/XX/XXXX Senate bill 1638 : SB 1638, Johnson. Deeds of trust : trustee substitution. Existing law sets forth the procedures for the substitution of trustees under a deed of trust upon real property or an estate for years therein. This bill would, as an alternative procedure, set forth the procedures for the substitution of trustees under a deed of trust upon real property or an estate for years, given to secure an obligation to pay money, by the beneficiary or beneficiaries under the trust deed who hold more than 50 % of the record beneficial interest of a series of notes secured by the same real property or of undivided interests in a note secured by real property equivalent to a series transaction. The bill would also establish a process through which all of the beneficiaries under a trust deed can agree to be governed by beneficiaries holding more than 50 % of the record beneficial interest of a series of notes in real property or interests in a note equivalent to a series transaction, as specified. In order to substitute trustees or agree to be governed by the majority interest holders, all parties to the transaction would be required to sign and record a document containing specified information. This rule gave banks the power to substitute a new trustee at the will of the bank thereby destroying any semblance of law to the Power Of Sale c lause or CA Civ Code 2924. It negates the independence of the Trustee as it enables the banks to substitute a trustee rather than having to follow the existing rules of the CA Civil Code. This bill became enacted law in XX/XX/XXXX , ther ein making EVERY Deed of Trust agreement issued by a financial institution since that date fraudulent on its face and therefore VOID.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: 92037
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-06-05
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-06-14
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I got behind and tried to do a modification. The doubled my house payment and are not applying any of the payment to principle. Taking their " fees '' off the top. Tried to do a short sale. They said that would take 30 days and they would " think about it ''. Have repeatedly been told by the company I should just let it go back, in other words foreclosure. I had a guy willing to buy for XXXX less than owed and they rejected. House needs lot of work. They have been impossible to deal with and Im going to be homeless because I cant pay double payments. I feel like they have oushed me into foreclosure, and the worst part is they act like they have done me a favor. Its a shame. Im not working right now and struggling just to hold on. I am currently caught up on their sorry modification plan, but it still shows like Im behind with all the credit reporting companies because they arent reporting it as paid. So any hope I might have of getting another place will be hindered by this. I have been told the second I miss a payment legal proceedings will be started.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: TX
Zip: 764XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-06-14
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A