Date Received: 2017-05-08
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: First, since I filed my most recent complaint agains t SPS Servicing, the Ombudsman Department has elected to retaliate against me for that complaint and wi ll no longer address issues concerning my account over the phone. I will not indulge and write complaints to the Ombudsman for them to wait 30 days to explain an issue that should ta ke 5 minutes to explain in a phone call. I will continue to submit my complaints through this bureau, as necessary, so that I get a quick and complete response. Second, I have been disputing the same issues regarding my escrow for months now. The company continues to send correspondence saying " we have addressed these issues, '' yet they continue to make changes to my account because their employees continue to XXXX up issues concerning my payments. No doubt, they will respond to this complaint by saying that they have already addressed this issue even though I spoke with TWO customer service SUPERVISORS today who could not explain the actions of the Ombudsman. The actions of the Ombudsman Department were incomprehensible to the supervisors of the customer service department for the SAME company, yet they refuse to talk to me over the phone to provide an explanation of what was done to my account. Third, at this point, I have just one issue remaining. I made my XXXX payment on XXXX XXXX , yet I am being told that I am delinquent for the month of XXXX . Now, on XXXX XXXX , 2016 , I made a {$500.00} payment to my account. On XXXX XXXX , 2016 , I made a {$2100.00} payment to my account. When I initially made those payments, they went in the designated accou nts ( prin cipal, interest, and escrow ) that they were supposed to do. I can see that {$870.00} of my XXXX XXXX payment went to my escrow account ( which is my normal monthly escrow payment ) and it appears that {$300.00} of the XXXX XXXX payment went to my escrow account. I have these payments and disbursements highlighted in the attached transaction history. For some reason ( that no one from the company can explai n ), o n XXXX XXXX , these funds to my escrow accou nt ( {$300.00} + {$870.00} ) were reversed from my escrow account and applied to principal and interest only. Altho ugh the company first tried to say that this was done at my request, their employees confirmed to me over the phone repeatedly that no such request was ever made. As a result ( after going back and forth with the Ombudsman for month s ), I requested that these two payments from XXXX and XXXX be reversed again to what they were originally. The Ombudsman told me that they would honor this request and they also explained that this may cause a delinquency in my account due to funds being pulled out of my principal and interest and I informed them that this was fine. I just wanted the payments to be properly applied to its original state. They recently sent me written correspondence telling me that they would honor the request to reverse the two payments from XXXX and XXXX to their original state. After I received the correspondence, I called the department to see what the status of my account was. To my surprise they informed me that the reversals wiped out my ENTIRE payment of {$2200.00} for the month of XXXX except for {$120.00}. I called SPS today to get an explanation of why this was because if they reversed the XXXX and XXXX back to what they were originally, they should have resulted in them removing {$1100.00} ( {$300.00} + {$870.00} ) from p rincipal and interest and putting it back in my escrow account. This means that after they deducted that {$1100.00} from my XXXX payment of {$2200.00}, I should have had approximately {$1100.00} left in my unapplied balance, and NOT just a mere {$120.00}. I need an explanation of why my money is missing from my unapplied balance. As I mentioned above, neithe r one of the TWO cus tomer service SUPERVISORS who I spoke with today could explain this to me. And, if they do n't comprehend it, then surely I, as the consumer, ca n't comprehend it! I have attached the SPS payment history regarding my XXXX and XXXX payments as proof of the original payment and account designations for each payment.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: MO
Zip: 63139
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-05-08
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-05-08
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I tried to make a payment of {$5000.00} but told payment would n't be accepted so I had to filed for a modification reasons ; divorce, XXXX XXXX XXXX , time off work, loss wages, garnishment from debt of ex husband.Now I have my finances under control, all documents has been submitted to SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING , INC . Response wa s a denied modification- non Home Retention options XXXX XXXX Help 1. racial dis crimination is reason for denial 2. property is appraised twice the amount of original loan.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: DC
Zip: 20002
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-05-08
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-05-07
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I lost my home to wrong doing foreclosure now want to submit a claim for settlement
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: MN
Zip: 551XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-05-11
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-05-06
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: My complaint is not about paying my mortgage. I am trying to refinance my mortgage. I had a loan modification. I need a copy of this modification to begin refinancing my mortgage with another bank. Select Portfolio Servicing is my mortgage carrier now. I have tried since XX/XX/XXXX to get a copy of my modification agreement. Every time I call I am told a different date when they will fax it to me. First it was 3 days, when I did not receive it I was told I would have it XX/XX/XXXX . When I did not receive it then I was told they had 5 days until they had to send it. 5 days passed and again I did not receive it. I called back and said that I was contacting your company in 2 days if I did not receive the paperwork. They said do what you have to do. I gave them a week and I still do not have my paperwork. So now I would like to file a complaint against Select Portfolio Servicing.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: MA
Zip: 020XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-05-06
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-05-05
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed
Subissue: Debt was already discharged in bankruptcy and is no longer owed
Consumer Complaint: This complaint stems from a decade-old foreclosure case, and specifically involves the attempted collection of a 'dormant ' mortgage debt. Ohio law is crystal clear that when a debt is not 'executed upon ' or 'renewed ' within a five-year period, the debt is considered dormant, and the lien is extinguished. Ohio law further defines the 'execution ' of debt to as " a process of court, issued by its clerk, and directed to the sheriff of the county. '' ( R.C. 2327.01 ). In my case, there was no 'execution ' as defined above, nor a 'certificate of judgment ' renewed during the period of time from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX . As such, the Summary Judgment issues by the Court of Common Please became dormant on XX/XX/XXXX . Nonetheless, on three occasions since that time - specifically XXXX XX/XX/XXXX , XX/XX/XXXX , and XX/XX/XXXX - the alleged Plaintiff in my case - XXXX XXXX XXXX - allegedly acting under direct orders from Select Portfolio Servicing, INC - filed a Praecipe Order of Sale with the Court in what amounts to an attempt to collect a debt that I currently do not owe as a result of the statutorily-imposed dormancy . In addition, SPS itself has attempted more than 50 separate collection activities during the time since the judgment became dormant including sending letters to me, making phone calls, and even attaching a note to my door. Nearly all of these activities occurred after I properly disputed the debt, and the note on my door occured after I specifically requested that SPS 'cease and desist ' collection activities since the debt remains unvalidated to this day. The specific statute is Ohio Revised Code 2329.07, which codifies when a Judgment may become dormant : ( A ) ( 1 ) If neither execution on a judgment rendered in a court of record or certified to the clerk of the court of common pleas in the county in which the judgment was rendered is issued, nor a certificate of judgment for obtaining a lien upon lands and tenements is issued and filed, as provided in sections 2329.02 and 2329.04 of the Revised Code, within five years from the date of the judgment or within five years from the date of the issuance of the last execution thereon or the issuance and filing of the last such certificate, whichever is later, then, unless the judgment is in favor of the state, the judgment shall be dormant and shall not operate as a lien upon the estate of the judgment debtor. One bankruptcy judge has explained the operation of these statutes as follows from In re XXXX , XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX ( XXXX . XXXX Ohio XXXX ) : Ex ecution and dormancy statutes are to be strictly construed. XXXX v. XXXX , XXXX Ohio XXXX XXXX , XXXX , XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX ( Ohio XXXX ) ; XXXX XXXX . XXXX XXXX XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX XXXX . XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX ( XXXX ) ; XXXX XXXX . XXXX , XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX ( Okla. XXXX ). Section 2329.07 sets forth the only means in Ohio for preventing a judgment from becoming dormant. The clear language of the statute requires the issuance of execution or a certificate of judgment before expiration of the original five-year period to prevent dormancy. Section 2329.07 provides that in order to extend the effectiveness of a judgment beyond the initial five year period there must be either execution or the issuance of a new certificate of judgment before expiration of the original execution or certificate of judgment. As a result of the above, the law is clear that the judgment is dormant, and any action to collect on the debt is a violation of state and federal law.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: OH
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-05-05
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-05-05
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: In XX/XX/XXXX we applied for a modification on our home at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX , NY XXXX . Select Portfolio Servicing, In c. n ever responded to our initial request. Upon follow up, we submitted a RMA in XX/XX/XXXX , XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX . In XX/XX/XXXX we finally received a response from SPS approving us for a trial modification under the Makin g Home Affordable p lan. We made the required three modification payments in the amount of {$2100.00} each in XX/XX/XXXX , XX/XX/XXXX , and XX/XX/XXXX . We were supposed to hear back with a permanent modification within 30 days of the final payment. We did not hear back from SPS, instead they kept telling us that the file was being looked over for approval. We continued to make three more payments in XX/XX/XXXX , XX/XX/XXXX , a nd XX/XX/XXXX . After filing a complaint with the CFPB in XX/XX/XXXX , we finally received a letter from SPS stating that they could not offer us the Tie r 2 HAMP modification they had promised us in XX/XX/XXXX , but would instead offer us an in house modification. We objected to the change but signed the papers they sent us because we did not want to lose our home. The papers were sent in XX/XX/XXXX . We were notified in XX/XX/XXXX that we had put the incorrect year of XXXX on the papers we signed and they needed us to sign another paper. We were sent another set of papers. We signed those papers and returned them in XX/XX/XXXX along with another payment of {$2100.00}. SPS states that they can not accept these papers and the offer has expired. In XX/XX/XXXX , SPS sent us a notice that the previous offer expired but they were considering us for another modification. We received the modification papers dated XX/XX/XXXX requesting three trial payments of {$4700.00}. This is {$2600.00} more per month from the modification we were offered in XX/XX/XXXX . Our financial circumstances have not changed and while we are not able to pay the {$4700.00}, we are able to pay the original modification of {$2100.00}. In XX/XX/XXXX the home was appraised at {$480000.00}, in XX/XX/XXXX it was appraised at {$710000.00}, and XX/XX/XXXX it was appraised at {$690000.00}. Homes in this area do not increase over {$350000.00} in value. The appraisals from XX/XX/XXXX , XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX are inflated because XXXX XXXX does not want to forgive the principal or interest payments on this loan. This is the reason why we never received an answer within the 30 days that we should have after the final trial mortgage payment was received by SPS in XX/XX/XXXX . We think that this is a deceptive practice and that SPS intentionally dragged out the paperwork for the modification until the Mak ing Home Affordable progr am was expired. SPS did not honor their agreements or the timeline by responding within the 30 day periods as stated by law.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: FL
Zip: 33414
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-05-05
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-05-05
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed
Subissue: Debt was already discharged in bankruptcy and is no longer owed
Consumer Complaint: This complaint stems from a decade-old foreclosure case, and specifically involves the attempted collection of a 'dormant ' mortgage debt. Ohio law is crystal clear that when a debt is not 'executed upon ' or 'renewed ' within a five-year period, the debt is considered dormant, and the lien is extinguished. Ohio law further defines the 'execution ' of debt to as " a process of court, issued by its clerk, and directed to the sheriff o f the county. '' ( XXXX . XXXX ). In my case, there was no 'execution ' as defined above, nor a 'certificate of judgment ' renewed during the period of time from XXXX XXXX , XXXX through XXXX XXXX , XXXX . As such, the Summary Judgment issues by the Court of Common Please became dormant on XXXX XXXX , XXXX . Nonetheless, on three occasions since that time - specifically XXXX XXXX , XXXX , XXXX XXXX , XXXX , and XXXX XXXX , XXXX - the alleged Plaintiff in my case file a Praecipe Order of Sale with the Court in what amounts to an attempt to collect a debt that I currently do not owe as a result of the statutorily-imposed dormancy. The specific statute is Ohio Revised Code 2329.07, which codifies when a Judgment may become dormant : ( A ) ( 1 ) If neither execution on a judgment rendered in a court of record or certified to the clerk of the court of common pleas in the county in which the judgment was rendered is issued, nor a certificate of judgment for obtaining a lien upon lands and tenements is issued and filed, as provided in sections 2329.02 and 2329.04 of the Revised Code, within five years from the date of the judgment or within five years from the date of the issuance of the last execution thereon or the issuance and filing of the last such certificate, whichever is later, then, unless the judgment is in favor of the state, the judgment shall be dormant and shall not operate as a lien upon the estate of the judgment debtor. One bankruptcy judge has e xplained the operation of these statutes as follows from In re XXXX , XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX ( XXXX . XXXX Ohio XXXX XXXX : Execution and dormancy statutes are to be strictly construed. XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX Ohio XXXX XXXX , XXXX , XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX ( Ohio XXXX XXXX ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX XXXX . XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ; XXXX XXXX . XXXX , XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX Okla. XXXX ). Section XXXX sets forth the only means in Ohio for preventing a judgment from becoming dormant. The clear language of the statute requires the issuance of execution or a certificate of judgment before expiration of the original five-year period to prevent dormancy. Section 2329.07 provides that in order to extend the effectiveness of a judgment beyond the initial five year period there must be either execution or the issuance of a new certificate of judgment before expiration of the original execution or certificate of judgment. As a result of the above, the law is clear that the judgment is dormant, and any action to collect on the debt is a violation of state and federal law.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: OH
Zip: 44406
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-05-10
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-05-05
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I am a client of SPS Financial a nd I am in the midst of RMA process, I have submitted all of the information needed for the modificatio n ( P & Ls and On-Boarding S tatement from XXXX , XXXX County Office ). However, I requested to cancel a debit for {$2200.00} on my account ; stating instead that I will send in my payments manually ( {$1100.00} is on account - {$1100.00} to be sent ASAP to complete the XXXX 2017 p ayment ). However, I requested on XXXX .2017 to cancel the {$2200.00} debit from SPS but to no avail ; they have debited by account twice ( XXXX .201 7 ) and t oday ( XXXXX .2017 ) to the tune of {$60.00} in Overdraft Fees. Now, I have to go to my credit union and request another Fraud Alert and reversal on my bank account to reverse these fees. I am in the midst of doubling my income by working for XXXX - XXXX County 's Office and as a Notary Public but I need time to ramp-up my salary to make this happen. Right now, I am collecting CA UI and need this due consideration from SPS.
Company Response: Company believes complaint is the result of an isolated error
State: CA
Zip: 91306
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-05-09
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-05-04
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: This is a new issue regarding an ongoing foreclosure. In short, I 'm in the process of providing one fin al piece of information that Select Portfolio Servicing , Inc. requested regarding a loan modification application that I completed on XXXX XXXX XXXX . As part of the completed process, SPS did take action to cancel a pending sale that had been scheduled for XXXX XXXX XXXX . In their letter regarding that cancellation, SPS indicated that the XX/XX/XXXX sale was canceled, and no further sale was rescheduled. They also said they would advise me in a new date was scheduled. However, on XXXX XXXX XXXX , the attorney representing SPS - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX - filed another 'Praecipe Order of Sale ', and as a result of that Praecipe XXXX a new sale date of XXXX XXXX XXXX has been set, with a 'back-up ' date set for XXXX XXXX XXXX . In a phone call today with the ombudsman fo r SPS, t he representative, XXXX XXXX , said there was no sale date scheduled, nor an order of sale issued. I was placed on hold while she called the attorney firm mentioned above, and when she came back on the line, she confirmed that no date had been scheduled or ordered by their law firm. This is the second time in the past year that I hav e been working with SPS on the one hand ( the first time being validation of debt issues, which has still not been validated ), and on the other hand, the attorney group has filed an Order of Sale. This is a clear illustration of 'dual tracking ' because I submitted a 'Facially Complete ' loan modification application on XX/XX/XXXX , and yet, another sale date has been scheduled. On top of that, contrary to their earlier statement via letter, I have not been informed of that date b y SPS, an d only learned of it by checking th e Court dock et. Further, on their own monthly statements to me, SPS reflects that only 1 foreclosure notice has been submitted, but that is not true since 2 have now b een submitted. What would be a fair resolution to this issue?
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: OH
Zip: 44406
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-05-04
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-05-04
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I had started a mortgage modification .... I was told they will give me a relief program what I was not aware of at the end of the year I would have to pay double plus the payment and my balance of loan went higher .... I ask Select Portfolio why the y gave me this loan .... they said ok we will help you now they gave me a interest only loan and said if I do not take it they will foreclose my home ... .. I wanted to appeal and they told me if I did this they would not accept my next payment ... .. This is why I am trying to save my home and if the balance of my loan keeps increasing I will never be able to save my home .... I have XXXX children and my family close to me who help me take my children to school while I work .... Please I have sent a letter to our Congressman XXXX XXXX for assistance .... I have complied with every request from SPS and now my loan is worse and higher ... .. Please help me save my home I also have sent a letter to U.S Treasury Dept. Please help me. Sincerely, XXXX XXXX
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: 95212
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-05-04
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A