Date Received: 2017-05-02
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: In early XXXX , I applied to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , the mortgage servicer at the time, for mortgage relief thru a loan modification to save home. I submitted a full and complete loan modification package to XXXX for review. On or about XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX thru its foreclosure trustee law firm, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , file a Notice of Default against the property while I was fully engaged in a loan modification review with XXXX . I called XXXX in early XXXX to inform them that they were violating the California HBOR law by filing the NOD during the loan modification process and they ignored my request to retract the filing. This is a violation of HBOR and HAMP. On or XXXX XXXX XXXX , the mortgage loan servicing transferred from XXXX to SLS ( see letter enclosed ). As a result, XXXX stopped reviewing my loan modification request and SLS forced me to submit an entirely new loan modification package for their own review because they were not using anything sent to XXXX for the review. The loan modification review lasted several months but SLS ultimately denied for an unjustified reason even after I contested and challenged it thru an appeal. SLS failed to definitely provide a justifiable reason under the HAMP program or internal program. In fact, SLS grossly miscalculated my monthly income which was their basis of denying the loan modification. On or about late XXXX of XXXX , SLS denied my loan modification request. On or about XXXX of XXXX , I appealed the decision and requested a Second Independent Review which was then also denied by SLS in XXXX of XXXX . ( See letters enclosed ) As a result, the only option they offered was the Short Sale as the Foreclosure Alternative. So I accepted it not knowing if the SLS denial was justified under the HAMP/ MHA or HBOR XXXX I exercised my right to Short Sale under the Foreclosure Alternatives and the mortgage servicer SLS Approved my request for the Short Sale Option under the Governments Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives Program on or about XXXX XXXX XXXX . I have attached a copy of the request package and HAFA Letter received. In t he HAFA letter, SLS outl ined my responsibilities as the Seller as well as the actions that SLS was to carry out. Specifically, it stated under Servicer Responsibilities that SLS was to postpone any foreclosure sale pending during the transactional period. The section states as follows : ( Short Sale Program Servicer Responsibilities ) Postponement of Foreclosure Sale. We will postpone any foreclosure sale until the expiration of the 120 day marketing period plus any extensions that we may grant in writing, or until the closing date of an approved short sale, whichever is later. Please note that we may still initiate foreclosure or continue with existing foreclosure proceedings as permitted by the mortgage documents or applicable law during this period. On or about XXXX XXXX , SLS received and began processing a purchase offer from a Buyer named XXXX XXXX . I have attached a copy of the fully executed offer package. On or about XXXX XXXX XXXX , SLS thru it s foreclosure trustee law firm, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , file a Notice of Default against the property while I was fully engaged in a HAFA Short Sale review with SLS. This is a violation of HBOR and HAFA. On XXXX XXXX XXXX , after several months of processing and reviewing the short sale package -SLS issued an approval of the purchase offer accepted by me the Seller and Buyer XXXX XXXX as evidenced in an official Approval Letter issued by SLS . ( See Attached ) In t hat short sale approval letter there was no required to have any of the parties sign to acknowledge. In fact, it also stated that the closing date had to be XXXX XXXX XXXX which was less than the 30 days as stipulated in the original offer terms in the purchase agreement dated XX/XX/XXXX ( See p urchase offer ). The Buyer XXXX XXXX could not get his mortgage broker to secure the purchase loan within the expedited time frame as demanded by SLS ( 26 calendar days ). So I informed SLS that the Buyer needed more time which is reasonable given the normal transaction time is 30 to 45 days. Even SLSs own HAFA Matrix states that the Buyer should have 45 days to close escrow ( see enclosed Matrix ). The Buyers offer stipulated 30 days but SLS did not grant or honor the time. There were several calls made to SLS and the foreclosure trustee to request more time and to postpone the sale which were all denied by both parties. So on XXXX XXXX XXXX , SLS thru its foreclosure trustee, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX held the sale and the property reverted back to SLS as a banked owned property. The legal issues at hand, 1 ) XXXX and SLS as a mortgage servicers did not have the legal right to collect on said mortgage and conducted the foreclosure sale? , 2 ) XXXX as a mortgage servicer illegally started the foreclosure process by filing a Notice of Default while engaged in a loan modification review and then SLS illegally filed a Notice of Trustee Sale while engaged in a short sales in direct violation of HBOR and HAFA. XXXX and SLS as mortgage servicers never once stopped the foreclosure process in accordance to California law and the rules of engagement under HAMP and HAFA. This foreclosure sale is ILLEGAL and in violation of HBOR Law with respect to Dual Tracking since SLS thru its Foreclosure XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX wrongfully persisted with the foreclosure process while SLS was directly engaged with me for the short sale review and continued all the way thru the short sale approval in XXXX of XXXX as well as thru XXXX while in escrow. This is a clearly an illegal act and the very essence of the meaning of dual tracking under the HBOR. Therefore, it is imperative that both SLS and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX rescind the wrongful foreclosure sale. In addition, the illegal foreclosure sale is in direct violation of California Foreclosure Civil Law California Civil Code Section 2924g specifically because the Notice of Trustee Sale recorded on XXXX XXXX XXXX in th e County of XXXX XXXX expired on XXXX XXXX XXXX at midnight. Civil law states that the recorded NOTS is only standing for a maximum of 365 calendar days. The foreclosure sale date was officially XXXX XXXX XXXX which is technically 385 days after the recordation of said NOTS. Th e law requires states : ( 2 ) In the event that the sale proceedings are postponed for a period or periods totaling more than 365 days, the scheduling of any further sale proceedings shall be preceded by giving a new notice of sale in the manner prescribed in Section 2924f . New fees incurred for the new notice of sale shall not exceed the amounts specified in Sections 2924c and 2924d, and shall not exceed reasonable costs that are necessary to comply with this paragraph. The short sale transaction remains opened with escrow is a current short sale in escrow that is pending however SLS and Trustee have not allowed it to close for an unjustified reason.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: CA
Zip: 91710
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-05-03
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-04-30
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: XXXX XXXX , XXXX Specialized Loan Servicing LLC XXXX . XXXX XXXX XXXX , CO XXXX Dear Sir/Madam, You continue to send me information re : research but have not updated my account to reflect the information provided to you by XXXX who sold you the loan. XXXX sold my loan to SLS and I am paid until XXXX XXXX . SLS does not acknowledge this and continues to mark my account past due. XXXX has provided the information 3x pe r my request and still no change in my account status or SLS acknowledgement in violation of RESPA. ( 12 U.S.C. Section 2605 ) An SLS representative called the w eek of XXXX and informed me that SLS is aware that I am paid until XXXX . I requested this in writing but as of XXXX have not received this acknowledgement and there is no change to my account status. Am I to assume you will not honor the account status relayed to me by phone on SLS continues to send information to the wrong address ( see attached notices ). My correct address, which I have sent to SLS via official XXXX notification and which XXXX ha corr ectly noted, is : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX , GA XXXX Contact dates and times. All calls are recorded : XXXX / XXXX / XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ID # XXXX Received RESPA notice on XXXX which SLS has already violated XXXX XXXX ID # XXXX No name ID # XXXX XXXX Executive Ser vices says they do not have information that I am paid until XXXX XXXX Was told my rep that there wer e hundred of loans sold to SLS that SLS has not processed correctly and for whi ch they have no information. XXXX XXXX no ID # Requested welcome letter and payment notice and received information on an Automatic Payment Program XXXX Requested XXXX send another payment history to SLS XXXX The most thorough call where details of the account were discussed XXXX , XXXX automated calls with no change in status Received a notice that research is being performed on the account. Research for 2 months when the information was provided by myself, XXXX , and I was told research was being conducted on XXXX / XXXX / XXXX ? XXXX A notice that {$570.00} is due to bring my account current, but my account is paid until XXXX XXXX per the information provided to SLS by XXXX . The statement received shows a past due amount of $ {$420.00}, but I am paid until XXXX XXXX . SLS is sending notices that they are researching while sending statements that my account is past due, when I am paid until XXXX XXXX . XXXX XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX Consumer financial Protection Bureau # XXXX
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: GA
Zip: 30339
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-04-30
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-04-30
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: My parent 's house had gone in to default as my father is a XXXX veteran struggling with XXXX XXXX . I decided to pay their mortgages to make them current and called SLS to get a pay off amount. They gave me the amount of {$10000.00} and wiring instructions to their account at XXXX XXXX ; they informed me that the money had to be wired by Monday. I completed the wire transfer on Friday at my local XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and thought all was well. A week later, SLS sent a letter listing the home for sale. In the following two weeks, they have refused to admit they have received the money and are also refusing to look for it. They have stolen {$10000.00} and are going to take my parent 's house without even attempting to look for this money.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: GA
Zip: 30092
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-04-30
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-04-30
Issue: Credit monitoring or identity theft protection services
Subissue: Problem with product or service terms changing
Consumer Complaint: Hello, I started a loan modification on XXXX which is 3 months prior to when I was told to commence my loan mod for my HELOC loan that was coming due with SLS on XXXX . I have been working diligently with SLS to complete this loan mod. Its now been 7 months. My credit was always XXXX all my life. Because of the grossly laps in time that is takes to complete this process my credit score a s of XXXX is now XXXX . It is SLS protocol that SLS will not accept nor allow me to continue to make my monthly mortgage payment to SLS during the Mod process because the loan matured on XXXX . I find is extremely unfair, unjust and outright damaging to me that all my life I have significantly made my credit of importance to me and now in a matter of 7 months my credit is destroyed because I am not allowed to continue to make the monthly payments like I have in the past not missing one payment and by the way I am financially able to make the payments. SLS should NOT be reporting to the credit agencies during the loan mod processing time it takes to finalize this mod process and damaging my credit for absolute no reason at all.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: CA
Zip: 92879
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-05-02
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-04-28
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I have a non profit helping me. They call the lender to let the know I have decided to do a short sale on my home I was informed that it take 38 day for them to review my short sale document I asked if them can propone the sale date for I can turn in a short sale document. the rep. XXXX said that they will not proponed the sale date for I can submit a short date applicant I can put it in writing but it will not stop the date I just would like just I time for I can do a short date there not willing to work with me
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: CA
Zip: 90220
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-04-28
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-04-28
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: SLS has repeatedly miss-applied funds that were to be applied against the principal. The result is a falsely inflated balance that SLS uses to calculate the amount of interest owed. SLS is charging more interest than allowed by the original loan documents.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: FL
Zip: 33884
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-04-28
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-04-27
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: On XXXX XXXX , XXXX , I refinanced my home mortgage. Initi ally, the Loan w as serviced by XXXX XXXX . On XXXX XXXX , XXXX , the Servicing was transferr ed to SLS Loan Servicing. I have asked SLS to provide me with an amortization and payment history on the Loan, and their response is that they can only provide Loan information from the date they commenced servicing. Therefore, they want me to request an amortization from XXXX XXXX from the closing date to the date servicing was transferred. See the attached email response from SLS. How can SLS service the Loan if they can not provide a complete payment history? I am asking for a history because I made an additional principal payment of {$3500.00} on XXXX XXXX , XXXX , and that payment does not appear to be credited to my account.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: LA
Zip: 701XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-04-27
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-04-26
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Specialized Loan Services , XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX DOUBLED TAXES/INSURANCE in escrow. XXXX XXXX XXXX - Letter stated payment would go to {$1400.00} on XXXX XXXX XXXX from previous monthly amount of {$1100.00} *Discovered their escrow include my yearly taxes and insurance doubled XXXX XXXX - made payment of {$1100.00}. invoice said {$1100.00} XXXX XXXX - Made payment of {$1400.00}. invoice said {$1400.00} I paid on phone with rep who said they would do an escrow review to resolve the issue with double tax/insurance on escrow . * T his is over payment of {$260.00} for XXXX XXXX XXXX - made payment of {$1100.00} XXXX . invoice said {$1400.00} XXXX XXXX - made payment over phone of {$1100.0 0} ( XXXX ? ) after several harassing phone calls to me about payment overdue discussed the issue with double tax/insurance in escrow. On phone for XXXX mins and then they disconnected me. Called back and was on phone for 45 mins spoke to XXXX and XXXX ( tax dept ) no number given. XXXX stated she could see the double escrow and it just needs to be removed. Told them I would be reporting the issue in 15 days if this is not properly resolved. XXXX XXXX - Called again to resolve the " overdue '' after I received letter in mail dated XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX - made payment of {$1100.00 } ( XXXX ? ) invoice said {$1700.00}. XXXX XXXX - after several phone message to me from SLS I returned call. On phone for 30 minutes. They said they have not received payment for XXXX ! I once again asked if they had issues resolved and also what happen to my ( 2 ) XXXX payments. Was disconnected again. XXXX XXXX - Billing invoice for XXXX states I owe {$2900.00} which doubles what they continue to incorrectly bill me for my monthly invoices ( {$1400.00 } ). By my account they owe me : - {$1100.00} double XXXX payment - {$260.00} for over paying back in XXXX . TOTAL of {$1400.00}. They have been horrible to deal with from constant phone calls and messages at all times of the day/evening to their inability to resolve issues even after they agree the issue is theirs not mine. The extra money and funds they are holding is causing a financial hardship in my monthly budget. The time to have several lengthy phone conversations during my working hours is causing loss of work productivity that I should be compensated for.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: MI
Zip: 494XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-04-26
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-04-26
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: In XXXX XXXX we received the first piece of communication, in some 4 years, fro m SLS ( S pecialized Loan Servicing ) r egarding our second mortgage on our home, stating that we were approximately {$6000.00} in arrears, demanding payment or foreclosure proceedings would be initiated. We had diligently made every payment to this servicing company that had taken over our second mortgage, even though they refused to communicate with us since XXXX of XXXX , when we had been forced to file personal bankruptcy. We made call after call to SLS to try and determine what was going on but they refused to speak with us and finally we were forced to have our bankruptcy attorney call, at which time they advised us that the loan had reach a point of re-amortization in XXXX XXXX , and the payment had changed from {$250.00} to {$820.00} per month. In any case we paid the arrears amount immediately and began looking to refinance our mortgage. SLS unfortunately has taken this opportunity to report erroneous negative information on our credit report and to other mortgage lenders seeking a payment history. We strongly assert that we did not receive any notice of changes to our mortgage payment leading up to the XXXX XXXX change, nor did we receive a single notice of a shortage from XXXX XXXX - XXXX XXXX . I ca n't see any reason why we should be penalized when SLS clearly did not follow the law regarding a change notice, nor did they make any attempt to contact us when they saw we were making the same payment we had for the last 10 years, instead of the re-amortized payment amount. I asked SLS today why they did not send us any notifications, and they state that they did, on 3 occasions. I am old school. I read the newspaper ever day. I read all of my mail every day. I know that it is not possible that SLS could have s ent 3 notices and I would not have seen any 1 of the m. Our phone number has been the same since we bought this house as well. We have not received a single phone call or message from SLS regarding this or any other matter. I asked if any of their communication was sent as registered mail, and of course their answer was no. We received no communication and no documentation, period.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: FL
Zip: 349XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-04-26
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2017-04-26
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I am having to submit an entirely new complaint because the loan servicer, Specialized Loan Servicing, did not address ANY of the numerous egregious violations which were included in our initial complaint. Although they took over the loan from XXXX , they now defer all violations to them and to XXXX XXXX with whom we have no issue at all. They still claim that we were denied a Loan Mod because of missing documents which is patently false and we have all back up documentation to prove that. Nowhere in " their response '' do they even mention the HOBOR and RESPA violations which were clearly and undeniably presented. That is correct. There is NO mention or response to our complaints. Instead, they provide boiler plate language claiming courtesy and expeditious handling of the matter when we have 17 unanswered attempts to contact our SPOC during the prior loan mod process. SEVENTEEN. We were forced into unnecessary BK because they were sending notices to an address in a Different City. W e were not even given the " courtesy '' of a cost to cure. In short, their response to our complaint was a form letter filled with platitudes, assuming NO responsibility for their mishandling of our documents, egregious errors, and attempted foreclosure with NO valid means of notification. Banking ca n't get any worse than this. Criminal.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: CA
Zip: 928XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2017-04-26
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A