Date Received: 2016-12-30
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I write this letter with the hope that someone in your agency may be helpful to assist me/us in the resolution of a longstanding issue we 've been experiencing while in the process of negotiating a short sale on behalf of Mr. Realtor 's client : Homeowner Mr . Homeowner is a diplomat with the XXXX government. XX/XX/XXXX Mr . Homeowner was forced to relocate his family to XXXX on assignment to fulfill his Consulate duties. Since the above mentioned property 's value was considerably less than the current market he hired Mr. Realtor XX/XX/XXXX to proceed with a short sale. A complete short sale package was submitted to the 1st lienholder ( SPS ) XX/XX/XXXX. Mr. Realtor proceeded with marketing the property for sale via the local *REALTOR 's Multiple Listing Service ( MLS ). During the period between : XX/XX/XXXX - XX/XX/XXXX Mr. Realtor procured three separate buyers through his marketing efforts. Each buyer canceled as a result of an inordinate amount of time waiting for this transaction to be granted an approval by the 1st lienholder ( SPS ). The reasons for the delays were varied - from the net proceeds being insufficient, documents required to be updated to Broker Price Opinions ( BPOs ) expiring due to the lengthy process. Finally, after procuring the third buyer an approval was granted - XX/XX/XXXX. By this time the buyer in question was forced to cancel because he could n't afford to wait any longer as his living conditions were temporary and he needed to renew a lease. The property was subsequently returned to the MLS and another buyer was procured as a result. By this time since the seller 's net proceed was known in accordance with the approval granted with the previous buyer - Mr. Realtor saw no reason why a subsequent approval would n't be expedited as identical terms were negotiated to protect the net proceed amount required by the lienholder ( s ). Until today SPS has not provided us with an approval giving the most unreasonable excuses. It appears that SPS has not trained their employees properly when it comes to loss mitigation guidelines and procedures specially for the State of NV. Therefore, I 'm reaching out to your agency for help since we have done everything within our ability over the last twenty two months to complete this short sale - procuring four separate buyers - providing all the required documentation - only to discover SPS failure to perform in accordance with loss mitigation guidelines that are in place for the state of Nevada. We believe Mr . Homeowner 's consumer rights have been violated. SPS has made this client feel unprotected by this unfortunate situation. The homeowner " Mr . Homeowner '' is in distress as he is a foreign diplomat who is obviously concerned about having a foreclosure on his record.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: NV
Zip: 89121
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-12-30
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: No
Date Received: 2016-12-29
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: SPS continues to ignore the real issues of my complaint as described in our attached verified and notarized statement in opposition to their response to our CFPB complaint case XXXX.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: FL
Zip: 33181
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-12-29
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: No
Date Received: 2016-12-29
Issue: Application, originator, mortgage broker
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: We attempted to achieve a lower interest rate through both XXXX and Select Portfolio Services. We submitted paperwork to XXXX for over 11 months they then transferred the loan to SPS and we started the process over and they continually asked for the same documentation over and over. We insited we did not want a loan modification we simply wanted a a lower interest rate. They said no probel. Finally after XXXX plus months they denied our request because we did not qualify for the loan mod because we made to much. This delay will now cause us to pay higher interest rates if we re-finance because rates are now rtisiong. They continually did not return phone calls when we complained they were rude to my wife and stalled. They are now harrasing us for a payment they say we owe, which we believe we do not, as you can see we pay between the XXXX and XXXX of the month on line. This is an issue left over from an XXXX mistake. We just want this issue resolved and SPS to reimburse us for our time and the lost funds a higher interest rate is going to cost us.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: 92021
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-12-29
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: No
Date Received: 2016-12-28
Issue: Loan servicing, payments, escrow account
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: XX/XX/2016 XXXX, GA XXXX Director XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX, IA XXXX Headquarters address Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX Dear XXXX ; Recommendation : Legal Action Background Select Portfolio Services has responded to my grievance. The responses are general and superficial. SPS does no have the capacity and or will to address individual client complaints and to resolve injustices. There is a strong implication that this problem may warrant Class Action Litigation. First, I suspect that this economic and financial negligence is systemic. During the Great Recession numerous homes declined in price. Local tax authorities and Mortgage Servicers did adjust the tax escrows and actual payments to the house value decline. Further as in the case of SPS when the home was modified this was an act of evidencing an acknowledging that the home value was less than the price at origination. Hence, a tax adjustment was required. A tax adjustment in many cases such as mine would have saved the American 's homes FACT : SPS was notified that XXXX County taxes resulted in mortgage modifications becoming uneconomic. The taxes did not reflect the home market value. Negligence The negligence was a modification focus total mortgage debt and not government assistance and not cash flow. Modification ( Incomplete and Fraud in Modification ) In fact, it could be argued that less financial forbearance would have been required if the mortgage services had a tax adjustment strategy. The failure of mortgage banks to have a total risk strategy cost US taxes payers and the mortgage servicers shareholders. The charge is poor governance, financial negligence, and tax fraud. Governance It can be argued the interest earned while holding the tax escrow conflicted the mortgage servicer. This poor risk management increased foreclosures, Decreased mortgage servicing fees and income for shareholders In the case of SPS and many mortgage servicers when notified that the modification had made the mortgage uneconomic. A professional response by SPS would have been to contact the tax authorities and negotiate loss mitigation. This is because the homeowner was losing the home due to excess tax payments and not the principal and interest payment. Modification is not a modification without a tax payment adjustment or modification to market value. The modification was fraud. Further, SPS and other mortgage banks were negligent in forwarding or paying the escrowed taxes to the county or other tax authority when they knew that the taxes were excessive with or without a consumer 's complaint. SPS and other mortgage denied negligence and would like to pass the liability to the local Authorities. Many local authorities have imminent domain and a statutory limited liability. This is why SPS and other mortgages services must be included in the litigation. Sincerely, XXXX
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: GA
Zip: 30319
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-12-28
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: No
Date Received: 2016-12-27
Issue: Settlement process and costs
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I want XXXX to release the illegitimate lien on my house. I want them to return the {$160000.00} I have overpaid for my house for money I already paid to someone else for properties I do not own. I refinanced a loan to PAY off the balance ( as in the LENDER pays it off and applies my principal payments not add more for giving me nothing ). not finish paying for it before another XXXX loan kicks in!!! I want SPS to find out EXACTLY which loans were actually PAID and which loan they are trying to illegally collect from me.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: MO
Zip: 64081
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-12-28
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: No
Date Received: 2016-12-26
Issue: Loan servicing, payments, escrow account
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Select Portfolio Services has committed fraudulent acts against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and her son, XXXX XXXX XXXX. Their house payment has never been late, now SPS has sent their payment back and rejected the payment. They say she has taken bankruptcy when she has not ever filed for bankruptcy. They have been threatening to forclose for the past 7 years. They also sent a letter asking them to take {$10000.00} and relocate or be forclosed upon. SPS says there is a lien on the house and property, but it is confidential and they refuse to let XXXX XXXX know who has a lien on her property. When XXXX XXXX went to refinance through her regular bank, the banker called SPS for a payoff amount. SPS refused to give a payoff amount. XXXX XXXX has also found out that she has XXXX acct numbers when she should only have XXXX. XXXX XXXX is a XXXX yr old lady and her son, XXXX is XXXX.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: KY
Zip: 40216
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-12-26
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: No
Date Received: 2016-12-23
Issue: Loan servicing, payments, escrow account
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: My mortgage was purchased last year by SPS ( Select Portfolio Servicing ) from XXXX XXXX. Prior, I used to pay approximately {$250.00} per month in excess of my contractual obligation, and per the terms of a loan with no prepayment penalty, any payments in excess of the contractual amount are posted to the principle amount. In the future, I intend to make considerably more " over '' payments. On my most recent statement, SPS notified me that unless a full contractual payment is made, any overage would remain in " in-posted '' status until it builds to a full contractual amount. As my contractual amount is approximately {$5000.00}, this indicates that I could pay {$500.00} over, but nothing would post to my account for nearly a year. This is a violation of the loan agreement and creates an over charge for interest. Based on my conversation with SPS, I believe this is a systemic issue for any payment overages that come as payments outside of a single monthly payment ( i.e. if I pay {$500.00} mid month every month, they would only hold it in escrow, if I pay {$500.00} over on an end of month payment, it would post to principle ). I believe any party paying unique separate payments on top of contractual are victims of this misallocation and over charge of interest. I was told because this was a " conforming '' loan, the payment allocation was at their discretion. Not sure how conforming status impacts the legal payment hierarchy.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: PA
Zip: 193XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-12-23
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: No
Date Received: 2016-12-21
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Our mortgage was sold to SPS by XXXX just a couple weeks before we were going to be closing on our short sale. We have been working with SPS since XXXX and initially they ran our request for short sale under the wrong terms so it was denied. After finding that out we had to resubmit all the paper work, by our short sale specialist, who called every week and asked how things were going was told they had all the necessary information and were waiting for a decision. At the end of XXXX they mailed us a letter saying that the terms from the second mortgage do not meet their requirements, which was never communicated to the short sale specialist any of the times she called. We were able to work with the second mortgage to get a different settlement term with them except that we need to close by XXXX which SPS has been aware of. We have had all the paperwork turned in since the beginning of XXXX and still have no answer from them. Every time you call it 's impossible to speak to a supervisor or manager and the " relationship manager '' they assign is a joke, the person never calls back and their extension always rolls over to the same people you were speaking with before. They have said they have " escalated the file '' and that 's all they can do when you ask to speak to their supervisor they say they can not do anything else. They put a " ticket '' in for the relationship manager '' to call you back but they have XXXX48 hours and that 's all they will do. I 've explained to them multiple times that we have to have an answer by the XXXX or we are going to lose this short sale and they could care less they say well it could take 30 days and there is nothing they can do besides " escalating '' the file. I feel like they are getting some sort of monetary kick back from someone to prolong this process. They are horrible. Please help us.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: FL
Zip: 33710
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-12-21
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: No
Date Received: 2016-12-20
Issue: Settlement process and costs
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: To whom it may concern I XXXX received a short settlement from Wells Fargo bank the amount XXXX dollars.They gave me 45 days to pay it. I paid the amount and over the amount. With in the 45 days. I paid XXXX dollars over the amount I ask for my refund amount back and Wells Fargo refuse to pay me my refund back I tried many times to get my refund back but they refused. Please help me get my money back from Wells Fargo and XXXX. Acct # XXXX case # XXXX My phone XXXX MY email XXXX MY address XXXX FL XXXX.I also put in a complaint in with XXXX # XXXX Wells Fargo and XXXX also refused to answer XXXX.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: FL
Zip: 325XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-01-06
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: Yes
Date Received: 2016-12-20
Issue: Loan servicing, payments, escrow account
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Director Headquarters address Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX Dear XXXX XXXX ; RE : SPS : XXXX XXXX SPS refund excessive property taxes from XXXX to XXXX estimated has {$81000.00} plus interest by XXXX XXXX, XXXX. I would like for SPS to assume the responsibility of collecting the over paid taxes fro XXXX XXXX Findings After numerous attempts to sale XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX real estate experts have informed me that the failure to sale my property for over two years is due to uneconomic and excessive real estate escrow by SPS and XXXX XXXX 's failure to adjust property taxes. Background I spoke to an SPS Ombudsman professional today. The representive implied that the over payment of taxes from XXXX was not SPS responsibility. XXXX, at the closing of the home purchase the real estate agent XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX nor XXXX, the mortgage lender did not inform me that the monthly real estate taxes exceeded mortgage Principal and Interest. There is failure to disclose At the time of purchased XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX appraised my home for {>= $1,000,000}. I purchased the home for {>= $1,000,000}. Non Market Assessment During the Great Recession ( XXXX ) I requested a mortgage Modification from XXXX Mortgage. After the modification I realized that my monthly principal and interest was less than my P & I. I contacted the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and appealed the taxes during this period with no significant change. The servicing right form my mortgage was transferred to SPS during this period. Over the next years from XXXX to today I have corresponded to SPS, XXXX XXXX and CFPB. ( Failure to manage servicing and not being responsive to market decline ). In managing risk SPS was not prudent in challenging an obvious uneconomic structure of a mortgage. The Property Taxes exceed annual Principal and Interest payments. The excessive taxes where the cause of the credit risk and the need to modification. Loss mitigation could have been solved my simply address the tax assessment. SPS and XXXX XXXX continue to escrow and pay taxes has on XXXX real estate prices after an average 30 % market correction. In fact XXXX XXXX increase the assessment. This would imply that market prices very declined during the Great Recession and market prices continued to increase. The XXXX and SPS modifications were reckless an negligence. In fact, my mortgage P & I and taxes were higher after modification than before. First, I questioned the economics of my mortgage in numerous well-documented correspondences to, XXXX XXXX, CFPB and SPS. The major concern was why the principle and interest less that the taxes. SPS never provide a technical explanation or analysis. XXXX Number Location Address XXXX XXXX Assessments XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX {$650000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX CLUB CIR XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX CT XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX {>= $1,000,000} I will give SPS the rights to pursue the tax over payment to XXXX XXXX. I need my cash by XXXX XXXX, XXXX in order to relocated. Please respond as soon as possible sine I am being removed from the home and need funds to resettle. Sincerely, XXXX XXXX
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: GA
Zip: 30319
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-12-20
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: No