Date Received: 2016-02-11
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: My home loan was sold to a debt collector. From XXXX home loans to Select Portfolio Services. I have great credit and have NEVER missed a payment. Sps does not do any refinancing or loan modification. I ca n't take advantage of getting relief in any form unless I become sell my home for less or become delinquent. Since the home is underwater no leanding institutions will assist me. Not XXXX, HARP, HAMP, XXXX XXXX, MY BANK or any XXXX BANKS. I was never given the opportunity to search for a new lender nor did I sign any paper work. Is this legal? I feel like a prisoner with good credit history and it 's unfair, immoral and unjust.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: GA
Zip: 30016
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-02-11
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: Yes
Date Received: 2016-02-10
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I would like to file a formal complaint against my current mortgage servicer, SPS ( Select Portfolio Servicing ) I am in the process of applying for a loan modification with SPS. Letter dated XXXX XXXX, 2016 ( attached ) indicates I have until XXXX/XXXX/16 to complete the application process. I received a 2nd Letter dated XXXX/XXXX/16 ( also attached ) indicating that my home is scheduled for Foreclosure on XXXX/XXXX/16. Please advise.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: MA
Zip: 02360
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-02-10
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: Yes
Date Received: 2016-02-10
Issue: Improper contact or sharing of info
Subissue: Contacted me after I asked not to
Consumer Complaint: SPS sent a letter dated XXXX XXXX, 2016 regarding insurance coverage on my residential property. In the letter SPS indicates it is the mortgage servicer on a certain account number. It is hereby noted that the account has no relevance to us or to our property. There is no signed contract or agreement or any relationship between us and SPS. We have written to both SPS and CFPB about SPS 's absence of authority. SPS has admitted in prior communications that it is NOT the servicer of this account or any account in connection with us or our property ; that SPS has made contractual arrangements with third parties for SPS 's own profit ; that SPS has harassed us ; that SPS has not proved and is unable to prove that we owe any debt. Without proof of specific legal relationship, SPS is an illegal, unlawful " interloper '', without any rights whatsoever. SPS has no authority to " urge '' contact with our insurance agent to advise that the policy should be billed to Select Portfolio Servicing, or to include them as " Standard Mortgagee '', or " ITS SUCCESSORS AND OR ASSIGNS ''. Therefore we ask AGAIN that SPS CEASE and DESIST communication and DELETE this account.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: NY
Zip: 105XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-02-10
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: Yes
Date Received: 2016-02-09
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: XXXX XXXX through SPS, Inc. aided and abetted XXXX who defrauded Plaintiff XXXX XXXX on both loan contracts and then called XXXX XXXX hundreds if not thousands of times creating a psychological, emotional and physical state of virtual arbitrary detention resulting in extended injury and hardship. This illegal prohibited foreclosure action was improperly commenced first in XXXX, was withdrawn by Defendants ( to make way for the Replacement adhesion contract dated XXXX XXXX, XXXX ), then filed again eight months later, on an invalid expired contract, by the Defendants with the instant Summons and Complaint of XXXX XXXX, XXXX. XXXX XXXX Bank ( " XXXX '' ) / XXXX XXXX Bank et al., ( " XXXX '' ) solicited XXXX XXXX to refinance his home in XXXX. XXXX / XXXX, et al., lied at the instant contracts XXXX XXXX, XXXX origination about XXXX XXXX ' credit score, saying it was XXXX points Lower than it actually was. No one can lie- ( XXXX - Prohibited acts ). Defendants do not deny it. XXXX, now a division of XXXX et al., lied in order to place the contract into a subprime security, managed by trustee ( " XXXX Bank '' ) XXXX, bought by many investors through bankrupt XXXX, bought by XXXX for pennies on the dollar. Defendant XXXX Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX For XXXX XXXX Mortgage Loan Trust XXXX ( " XXXX '' ) as Trustee first managed the trust which held XXXX owned alleged loan contract, for XXXX, then for XXXX after XXXX bought XXXX with XXXX ' $ XXXX loan portfolio on or about XXXX XXXX, XXXX, for only $ XXXX. XXXX keeps violating consumer protection laws, including TCPA violations of excessive calling and fraud, with impunity because the fines are already built into their strategy as just a cost of doing business. They could spend 95 % of the value of the XXXX ' {$300.00} XXXX loan portfolio in legal costs and still make money. They do not care about puny court fines or the law because they keep breaking it. the sophisticated Defendants, XXXX, brought fraud upon the state court by filing, in scienter, the first invalid, prohibited, expired, usurious and illegally originated mortgage loan contract which included rates of 13.50 % and 17.50 %. 12 % is the maximum in CT, see XXXX XXXX which states : " Loans at greater rate than twelve per cent prohibited. No person and no firm or corporation or agent thereof, ..., shall, as guarantor or otherwise, directly or indirectly, loan money to any person and, directly or indirectly, charge, demand, accept or make any agreement to receive therefore interest at a rate greater than twelve per cent per annum. CT ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX. XXXX. ) Also Cited : Whether contract is made in evasion of this section is question of fact, XXXX. ( XXXX clearly made the second adhesion Replacement contract to evade the illegal first contact with virtually no change in interest ). " Voluntary taking or reservation of more than legal interest is per se usurious ; specific intent to violate this section is not essential. '' XXXX. ( XXXX / XXXX replaced the illegal tainted prohibited contract with an adhesion Replacement contract ). " Renewal notes as tainted with usury of original note. '' XXXX. ( XXXX adhesion Replacement note / Replacement contract was tainted by the old expired illegal usurious note ). " A first mortgage given to secure the performance of an illegal and unenforceable loan is equally ineffective. '' XXXX. ( XXXX second adhesion Replacement loan contract is ineffective. That is why they continued to sue on the first contract. This agency should ask Defendants to explain. XXXX would be wise to settle this out of court for no less than 10 % of the original {$710.00} XXXX complaint
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CT
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-02-09
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: No
Date Received: 2016-02-08
Issue: Loan servicing, payments, escrow account
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: On or around XXXX XXXX, XXXX, I received a XXXX ( Cancellation of Debt ) from SPS Mortgage. The date of identifiable event is XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. SPS Mortgage continued to collect mortgage payments before and after the identifiable event date.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: AZ
Zip: 85140
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-02-08
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: Yes
Date Received: 2016-02-07
Issue: Settlement process and costs
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: In it 's answer to complaint XXXX, SPS denies my demand to rescind my loan. They base the denial on the fact that my my loan originated in XX/XX/XXXX ... ... my ORIGINAL loan did originate in XX/XX/XXXX, but it was REFINANCED ( NOT MODIFIED ) XX/XX/XXXX. I say it was refinanced because the loan was INCREASED by over {$50000.00} because they added the balance of funds they ( actually XXXX XXXX, the servicer at the time ) used to pay off my then XXXX mortgage with XXXX XXXX without my knowledge or permission. They did n't just modify my original loan, they did a cashout ( the funds from XXXX mtg payoff ). The only way it would be a modification is if they did n't add the extra funds to MY account. Since I never received ANY TIL materials, or even an accounting for the extra money, I am exercising my 3 rear right of rescission, which I originally notified the XX/XX/XXXX. If the refinance that they call a modification was really just a modification, they would be right, but the refinance occurred on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, and I am well within the 3 year window to rescind.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: TN
Zip: 37129
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-02-07
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: Yes
Date Received: 2016-02-07
Issue: Settlement process and costs
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: In it 's response to complaint XXXX, SPS says they are denying my right of rescission because my loan originated in 1998 ... my ORIGINAL loan did originate in 1998, BUT XXXX ( the original servicer after they got the loan from XXXX, the original lender ) advanced over {$50000.00} to repay themselves what they spent tp pay off XXXX XXXX, my XXXX mtg holder. Thus, they did not just modify my original XXXX mtg like they ( SPS ) are trying to claim ... they actually REFINANCED my XXXX mtg because adding the {$50000.00} plus in additional funds is a cashout loan. The {$50000.00} in funds added to the original balance is money lent to me ( whether I wanted to borrow it or not ) ... unless they did not charge me for the XXXX mtg payoff this is a cashout refinance, period. Thus, I stand by my demand to rescind the loan. If SPS cares to make a reasonable counter offer, I will listen, but only if they acknowledge the true facts.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: TN
Zip: 37129
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-02-07
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: Yes
Date Received: 2016-02-06
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Re modification states according to terms provide for interest rateand principal and interest payment adjustments. Was paying XXXX monthly 2 % interest. Now new interest 9.2 % new payment with principal and interest XXXX. New monthly payment including principal, interest and taxes XXXX.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: NJ
Zip: 088XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-02-06
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: No
Date Received: 2016-02-05
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: My Investor on my property is XXXX XXXX. Select Portfolio Servicing Inc is servicing my loan. In XXXX XXXX I was approved for a HAMP modification and given XXXX trial payments. XXXX and XXXX XXXX and my last XXXX XXXX XXXX. I have made all my trial payments on time and verified that with the modification represenative and the mortgage company refuses to permanetly mondify my loan stating that HAMP wants a LOMA on my property. I called HAMP and they stated that the servicer is wanting that information due to it being about insurance not behind payments.This servicing company that XXXX XXXX gave my loan to be serviced by is sabotaging my HAMP modification so they can get my house. I want flood insurance, they lender placed it but state it does not meet their minimum requirements. Based on a letter sent to me the lenders placed insurance DOES meet the requirements. That makes no sense to me at all.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: FL
Zip: 33610
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-02-08
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: No
Date Received: 2016-02-05
Issue: False statements or representation
Subissue: Impersonated an attorney or official
Consumer Complaint: Select Portfolio Servicing is a debt collection company who has been harassing me daily. I sent them a debt validation letter and they never respond with the proper paperwork. In the mean time they continue to call my phone, left notes at my door. They are trying to foreclosure on me and I do n't know who this company. According to the FDCPA they are using deceptive practices to steal my home and also I did n't give them consent to contact me nor did they have express permission from a judge or court order saying that they can contact me. I know my rights are being violated. I am tired of living in fair and this is affecting my entire family. I am currently overwhelm by this company actions, I am suffering from XXXX, XXXX, XXXX and many more issues. See attached some correspondences from the company.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: MD
Zip: 20723
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2016-02-05
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: Yes