Date Received: 2023-04-15
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I have a mortgage with Select Portfolio Servicing Co. I have paid my escrow acct money toward ins. and taxes and the most recent escrow review has my mortgage payment {$300.00} more. Now I understand rises in insurance rates should have made my payment about {$100.00} more. But this company is charging me my normal escrow amount which should now be about {$360.00} plus {$300.00} more. I have called and each person is more nasty than the next. I am a low income XXXX XXXX XXXX and find it hard to believe that a mortagage company can just decide to charge escrow " in advance '' when that was not the policy in the past. This is not only unethical I can't believe it is legal? Please help, the extra {$300.00} a month is just not possible for me to handle. Thank you
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: FL
Zip: 34653
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-04-15
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-04-15
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: For twenty years my mortgages have been sold or my lender went out of bussines with a new company... .Three times I have lost my escrow every time at a cost to me of a few XXXX dollars... My new account holder has now sold my mortgage or going out of business... for the past two years I have paid my tax and insurance through them ... New statement as of XXXX went up XXXX dollars each month for escrow payment .... My taxes and insurance have not gone up it is a new Estamate that might go up .... I will no longer hold any extra in escrow for the reasons I have stated .... This aging is only a usage for mortage to control more of others money .... I have stated the loses of before and have tried to regain access of them, with no recourse of other chalk it up to XXXX happens .....
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: GA
Zip: 310XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-05-02
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-04-16
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Loan restructured under XXXX in XXXX with XXXX XXXX XXXX. In XXXX of XXXX, I was informed by XXXX XXXX XXXX that my loan was being transferred to Select Portfolio Services as of XXXX of XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX advised me that the terms and restructuring of my loan would not change only the servicer as they will continue to be the loan originators. In XXXX of XXXX, I began making my monthly payments in the amount of {$1600.00} directly to Select Portfolio. After five months of consecutive payments, I received a notice in XXXX of XXXX that Select Portfolio was adding PMI to my mortgage payment. On XX/XX/XXXX, I emailed Select Portfolio at XXXX to advise them on my legal rights and let them know my loan does NOT require PMI in the State of Georgia or based on the loans balance. Select Portfolio to my request for the removal of the PMI with the threat and removal of my escrow account. On XX/XX/XXXX, I emailed Select Portfolio and requested that my loan be returned to the status at which it was acquired from XXXX XXXX XXXX. Select Portfolio moved forward with their threat by removing my escrow accounts, during the months of XXXX and XXXX and setting my new monthly payments to {$1900.00} in XX/XX/XXXX. This amount included a mortgage shortfall account being added to the account. During the months of XXXX and XXXX of XXXX, I paid the full amount of my mortgage to include escrow, with the payments each totaling $ XXXXWhen making the payments online, I designated the specific required dollar amount to be deposited into the escrow account. Select Portfolio did NOT deposit those funds for the Months of XXXX or XXXX of XXXX to the escrow account. This was done to give my account the appearance of having a escrow shortfall and to increase my monthly payments to {$1900.00} thus forcing me to possible refinance or foreclosure. In XX/XX/XXXX, I receive a statement from Select Portfolio with no reporting of the escrow payments made in XXXX and XXXX of XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I reached out to XXXX XXXX XXXX the loan originator to report Select Portfolio for misallocation of funds and fraud. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX quickly responded my mailing out a copy of my note and a reporting of all transactions from XXXX. Select Portfolio responded by placing negative/false information on my XXXX credit report. My request is to have my monthly note returned to the amount of {$1600.00}, which is the acquisition amount from XXXX of XXXX. My request is to have my account audited and reviewed for any and all misallocation of funds, fraud and abuse by Select Portfolio Recovery. My request is to have Select Portfolio Recovery brought up on charges of Tax Fraud and Regulatory abuse charges for the removal of my escrow account.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: GA
Zip: 30045
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-04-16
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-04-15
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I received a letter today from my mortgage company stating that I was not eligible for any of their modification programs due to what I owe from default. These people were also constantly saying that I was missing paperwork for my modification application. I would like some help in finding out why I was not eligible out of all of the programs available and why they want my property so badly. I can pay some money to reduce the cost of what I owe and maybe get into a modification program.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: IN
Zip: 46323
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-04-15
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-04-14
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I started a loan modification with Select Portfolio Services in XXXX during the pandemic, I filled out an application and I sumbitted everything to them and I always seemed to be missing something even though I sent them what they asked and I would always get a different answer when I spoke to somebody on the phone. I was appointed a relationship manager but anytime I asked to speak him/her it changed twice I was never was able to speak to them, I was told that anybody who answered could help me they all did the same thing. All calls were recorded and I have all documents that were sent to them via uploading them to there website. I hired XXXX XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX and I paid them very good money to help me with predatory lenders. I provided them with anything they ever asked me to and at first they were in constant communication with me. When I was near the end and my file was being sent to SPS for the final process I was passed onto another processor who did not communicate with me at all after I reached out to her multiple times via telephone and emails. I spoke with a manager today,XX/XX/XXXX her name is XXXX and I have started getting phone calls asking if I wanted to continue with a different processor. I am in communication with XXXX and hopefully can come to a resolution. I was granted a time frame by the local courts and relayed that to my processor who never responded and I missed the deadline and I am trying to get an extension from the court. I really would like to go through my mortgage co just to get a loan modification without all the delays which were not necessary
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: OH
Zip: 44039
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-04-14
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-04-12
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: SPS servicing has delayed insurance funds to repair my home and refuses to give me interest on my money, over {$150000.00} as they collect interest on it and also charges me interest on my mortgage payment.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: NY
Zip: 11743
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-04-12
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-04-12
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Mortgage loan was paid in full on XX/XX/XXXX. Mortgage servicer website shows the paid in full amounts, and amount of funds paid. Paid in Full letter was sent on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX Balance Letter was issued on XX/XX/XXXXXXXX It also shows an escrow balance of {$1200.00}. Mortgage holder states there is no balance in escrow, and that escrow funds went towards payoff amount, which does not match with the amount of funds sent to them, nor their own paperwork. Select Portfolio Servicing customer service is stating that I have no balance in my escrow account and no funds are due, while the customer dashboard and payoff letters directly contradict this statement.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: TX
Zip: 78621
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-04-12
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-04-11
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed
Subissue: Debt was already discharged in bankruptcy and is no longer owed
Consumer Complaint: Select portafolio was charging me mortgage payment that dont belong to the bank they was working for treating to foreclose
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: NY
Zip: 11417
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-04-11
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-04-12
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I contacted Select Portfolio Servicing on Friday, XX/XX/ 2023, at XXXXXXXX XXXX, to discuss the possibility of completing a loan assumption. I had been served with a partition summons and in order for me to retain ownership of the subject property and avoid the untenable housing market in XXXX XXXX, I would need to assume the loan away from the co-borrower. The first representative I spoke with advised me that there are only 4 viable reasons for requesting an assumption : divorce, death, deportation and incarceration. When I explained to the representative that the partition demand operates under the same capacity as a divorce decree, she still stuck to what she called the guidelines. I requested to speak with a supervisor and unluckily spoke with XXXX. I asked her the same thing and she repeated exactly what the same representative had told me. She also told me that a loan assumption can not be done by a co-borrower, which is incorrect and untrue. The company is engaging in the very definition of disparate treatment if only certain legal actions allow for an assumption and others do not. The prior servicer, XXXX XXXX, would have been willing to allow the assumption but the timing for completion did not coincide with the ability to do so.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: 92127
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-04-12
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-04-10
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Titled Property : XXXX XXXX, NY XXXX Acct : Select Portfolio Servicing - Mortgage Account # XXXX Address of Mortgage Servicer : Select Portfolio Servicing Inc., XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, UT, XXXX Complaint Summary : This complaint summarizes the circumstances surrounding the refusal by the current mortgage servicing company " Select Portfolio Servicing '' ( SPS ) to recognize the legal distinction of a " guarantor '' on a business mortgage product and its failure to thereby properly list and report the payments made by such business entity ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to the business credit bureaus. Instead the mortgage servicing company incorrectly lists the " guarantor '' on the mortgage " XXXX XXXX '' as a co-borrower, on the mortgage, thoughno co-borrower signature or relationship has been establishedin the mortgage documentation. The complainant ( XXXX XXXXXXXX ) also believes that SPS has likely violated several provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act including but not limited to Section 5, regarding Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices, whereby SPS has caused and is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers and furthermore their actions can not be reasonably avoided by consumers. These include but are not limited to SPS actions in this matter when : a. SPS fails to acknowledge the legal distinctions/difference between a " co-borrower '' and " guarantor '' regarding security interests on a business mortgage product and thus failing to recognize that theproperty mentioned above is titled by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX a business entity registered in the state of FL & NY. Furthermore after several months of complaints to SPS, by the complainant, the company arbitrarily changed the erroneous status of XXXX XXXXXXXX from a " single borrower '' to a " co-borrower '', further complicating the issue and yet still failed to recognize that the the property is titled & deeded in the name of an LLC and as such also gives the LLC a vested interest in the property, since XXXX XXXX '' was only acting as a guarantor. SPS ignored the business security interest held by XXXX XXXX XXXX. b. Incorrectly reporting on mortgage documents and mortgage statements to interested parties, for the calendar period, XX/XX/XXXX thru XX/XX/XXXX that the mortgage account was in the name of an individualsole borrower " XXXX. '' when in fact the property was titled & recorded in the name " XXXX XXXX XXXX '' and as such did not have a sole borrower status or relationship. c. Also, possible violation of Title VI of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, whereby SPS continuously reported to the credit bureaus ( i.e XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ) for the period XX/XX/XXXX thru XX/XX/XXXX, that the mortgage account was in the name of an individualsole borrower " XXXX ". thereby ignoring the business interests of XXXX XXXX XXXX. which holds title for the property in question. Furthermore, when XXXX XXXX complained to the credit bureaus that the credit reporting information submitted by SPS was inaccurate, the credit reporting bureaus asked SPS to validate the information and on each occasion SPS failed to properly verify the information and instead " inaccurately submitted '' to the credit bureaus, that " XXXX. was the sole borrower on the mortgage account when no such fact was established as no " co-borrower '' or co-borrower signature line exists on the mortgage documents. d. Possible violation of Title VI of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, whereby SPS arbitrarily and likely illegally changed, added and reported to the credit bureaus in XX/XX/XXXX that " A.F. '' had changed status from a " sole borrower '' to a " co-borrower '' on the mortgage account, when the mortgage documents did not specify any such " co-borrower '' signatures or agreement on the mortgage products and furthermore, ignoring the titled business interests of XXXX XXXX XXXX of which XXXX. holds the position of " managing member ''. e. The mortgage servicing company ( SPS ) did not report payments made by XXXX XXXX XXXX to any of the " business credit bureaus ''. " Adverse Impact & Standing : '' An act or practice is unfair where it ( 1 ) causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers, ( 2 ) can not be reasonably avoided by consumers, and ( 3 ) is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. '' The basis for this complaint andpossiblefurther action, isthat Select Portfolio Servicing incorrect credit reporting, has caused a severe adverse impact in " XXXX '' ability to secure any substantial credit in his personal name for the period beginning XXXX XXXX XXXX & XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX. received two denials on a Home Equity line of credit application, primarily due to the incorrect reporting by SPS as the incorrect reporting had significantly impacted his debt toincome ratio being reported on his personal credit rating and thus making him " in-eligible '' for a Home Equity Line of Credit on his personal property. Resolution sought : a. Correcting of personal & business credit reporting Issue : Complainant " XXXX. '' who holds the title of " managing member '' of XXXX XXXX XXXX and is only acting as a guarantor for the XXXX XXXX XXXX mortgage loan, requests that the mortgage payments related to loan # XXXX should not appear on his personal credit report and all previously reported payment info should be removed and instead reported to the business credit report for XXXX XXXX XXXX. Furthermore, no information regarding this mortgage product ( Account # XXXX ) should be listed under the personal name of " XXXX. '' unless & only in the event that the titled entity & borrower " XXXX XXXX XXXX '' has legally defaulted on repayments.This fact recognizes that there exists a legal distinction between a co-borrower on a loan versus a guarantor, with the latter assuming the financial obligation of another party only in the event that the original party is unable to fulfill their obligation. b. Determine the adequacy of the SPS and interested parties, procedures, policies, and controls to ensureconsistent compliance with section 5 of the FTC Act. c.To determine if the SPSand interested parties, comply with section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices d.Provide complainant " XXXX. '' with the following documents/evidence as was previously requested in prior complaints made to the company in XX/XX/XXXX & XX/XX/XXXX requesting : 1. All non-confidential, non-proprietary, and non-privileged information containing the name " XXXX. '' or " XXXX XXXX XXXX '' relative to the transfer or servicing of this mortgage from XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX to company ( Select Portfolio Serv ). 2. All non-confidential, non-proprietary, and non-privileged information relied upon to inform the credit bureaus ( XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ) that the mortgage account referenced above was a personal account in the name of XXXX.. 3. All non-confidential, non-proprietary, and non-privileged information relied upon to inform the credit bureaus ( XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ) that the mortgage account referenced above was not owned by " XXXX XXXX XXXX ''. 4. Documents relied upon to substantiate the decision to have XXXX. removed as a " sole borrower '' and instead listed as a co-borrower. 5. Documentation relied upon to substantiate any consideration/decision against having A.F. listed as a co-signer. 6. Documentation relied upon to substantiate the decision, to exclude XXXX XXXX XXXX from being listed as the sole primary borrower on the account. 7. Explanation of what State ( i.e NY, FL, UT ) or Federal law is being relied upon to inform SPS decision to have XXXX. listed as a co-borrower on this mortgage? Factual Background : In XXXX of XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, a business entity in the state of NY of which complainant XXXX. is a managing member, initiated the purchase/refinance of a property in New York located at XXXX XXXX XXXX, NY XXXX XXXX The property was titled & deeded & filed in the name of the XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) in XXXX XXXX NY. Furthermore, since this was the first property purchase of XXXX XXXX XXXX, the original mortgage company XXXX XXXX XXXX Mortgage XXXX ) requested that XXXX. agree to act as a " guarantor only '' on the purchase of XXXX XXXX XXXX, in which he is also a managing member. In approximately XXXX of XXXX, XXXX. was notified that the mortgage was sold from XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX to Select Portfolio Servicing and XXXX. was surprised when he started receiving notices in his " personal name '' with information stating that that the Mortgage Servicer was changed to ( SPS ) Select Portfolio Servicing and payments would have to be made to them as such beginning on or around XX/XX/XXXX. Complainant ( XXXX. ) notified Mortgage Servicer ( SPS ) via electronic communications, phone & email, that the property was owned by XXXX XXXX XXXX and as such, communications, including statements & credit reporting should be disseminated in the name of the business and not in the personal name of the managing member " XXXX ''. After several calls to XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. was notified that the reporting error was with SPS and not XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX loan personnel even attempted to have SPS rectify the incorrect reporting but SPS refused to change. Beginning in XX/XX/XXXX and after several months of back and forth calls & complaints to the SPS customer service & ombudsman team, on or around XX/XX/XXXX, SPS provided written communication that an updated decision was made to change " XXXX. '' from the sole borrower to a " co-borrower, though no such legal relationship had been designated. Furthermore, SPS closed the case with no further action being deemed necessary, thus not addressing the interests of both XXXX, complainant and XXXX XXXX XXXX, the business interest.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: FL
Zip: 334XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-04-10
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A