Date Received: 2024-01-17
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue: Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbe
Consumer Complaint: I purchased the home at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, MN with my ex-husband, XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXXXXXX Due to financial hardship, we refinanced our modest mortgages on the home on XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX. We took out a mortgage with XXXX for {$160000.00} and were required to also sign a separate second mortgage to XXXX for {$42000.00}. Specialized Loan Servicing ( " SLS '' ) began servicing the junior mortgage on XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX according to its internal records. SLS did not timely abide by the notice of servicing transfer guidelines under 12 USC 2605 or Minn. Stat. 47.205. subd. 2. Due to financial hardship, I filed for XXXX XXXXXXXX bankruptcy protection on XX/XX/XXXX. An attorney filed a proof of claim as representative for SLS as " Attorney in Fact for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as Trustee '' on XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX listing the total debt of {$42000.00}. No documentation was provided in the bankruptcy case nor recorded on title to show either SLS or XXXX 's interest in the underlying loan, mortgage, or the property. SLS accelerated the loan on or before XX/XX/XXXX but then did not complete foreclose within the 15 year statute of limitations under Minn. Stat. 541.03. I subsequently filed for XXXX XXXX bankruptcy protection on XX/XX/XXXX. An order of discharge was granted on XX/XX/XXXX, which included a discharge of personal liability on the junior mortgage. In late XXXX, SLS suddenly began reaching out to me with new attempts to collect on the debt, threats to foreclose the junior mortgage, and pressure to enter into loss mitigation to pay an amount almost three times the original amount of the XXXX junior mortgage. I was confused and questioned whether this was a scam and against the law given my bankruptcy discharge in XXXX, and having heard nothing from SLS since XXXX about making further payments on the junior lien that was written off. In these activities, SLS violated 15 U.S.C. 1692f ( 6 ) of the unfair debt collections act and several provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 58 relating to mortgage servicer standards of conduct. SLS is also in violation of the terms that it agreed to in the Consent Order with the United States of America Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection filed XX/XX/XXXX.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: MN
Zip: 55317
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2024-01-17
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2024-01-17
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue: Escrow, taxes, or insurance
Consumer Complaint: The Mortgage was assigned forced escrow because of missed insurance payment. The insurance company reinstated homeowners insurance. The Specialized Loan Servicing company kept claiming we owned escrow money. Keeping money in unapplied account and marking payments " late ''. Charging fees and affecting our credit.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: KY
Zip: 40223
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2024-01-18
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2024-01-15
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue: Payment process
Consumer Complaint: Specialized Loan Servicing ( SLS ) failed to properly notify the Nebraska Homeowners Assistance Fund ( NHAF ) of an increase in my mortgage payment, leading to partial payments and potential future delinquency. This complaint is made under the relevant consumer protection laws and mortgage servicing regulations. **1. Statement of the Problem : ** SLS notified me on XX/XX/XXXX, of a mortgage increase from {$1500.00} to {$1700.00}, effective XX/XX/XXXX. However, they failed to inform NHAF through the required secure channels, despite their responsibility to do so. This omission has resulted in NHAF making only partial payments, XXXX, XXXX and XXXX, XXXX, jeopardizing my financial stability and potentially leaving me in arrears after my program participation ends in XXXX, XXXX, when final payment will be made and I am exited from the program. SLSs failure to notify NHAF not only demonstrates willful negligence and inadequate loan servicing but also raises concerns about predatory practicesm I have been experiencing with SLS for many years now. Including an incident where a representative of SLS, came to my door and called me " a XXXX XXXX XXXX '' in response to my questioning his intent. As a XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX veteran homeowner, I have years of neglectful servicing by Specialized Loan Servicing to know beyond a reasonable doubt that this oversight is part of a broader pattern of discrimination aimed at leading to foreclosure.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: NE
Zip: 681XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2024-01-15
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2024-01-16
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue: An existing modification, forbearance plan, short sale, or other loss mitigation reli
Consumer Complaint: In XXXX, my husband and I endured financial hardship after he endured XXXX for 8 months. I applied for a harship and was approved, I was constantly assured that this would include XXXX payment. The documents were sent for signature and it clearly included XXXX payment. They were signed and returned showing this was a forbearance. They then went in and placed a 30 day late on the XXXX payment which is totally incorrect. They have done nothing but give me the run around for a week trying to resolve it. During which time other creditors have lowered my credit limits which is affecting my score even more. Every time I call it is someone different with their own interpretation of the situation.A forbearance agreement claims to show no negative or derogatory information during the period of time.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: FL
Zip: 32828
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2024-01-16
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2024-01-11
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue: Foreclosure
Consumer Complaint: We filed a XXXX XXXX Bankruptcy in XXXXboth the first and second mortgages included and discharged, leaving us with debt against liens. We reaffirmed the debt with our first mortgage. Based on the information provided by our attorney, we decided to not reaffirm the second mortgage with Specialized Loan Servicing. Based on the information we received, we believed that SLS would not foreclose. Rather they would write off the debt or sell to a company that buys past-due debt. On Monday, XXXX XXXX XXXX we learned that a sheriffs sale had been scheduled. A neighbor who is a realtor saw our address and realized we were just 2 doors down. She provided the information she had from the XXXXXXXX XXXX. I called SLS and learned that a certified letter was mailed in XX/XX/XXXX and before that one was mailed in XX/XX/XXXX. The one in XXXX XXXX was the notification and we should have known at that time SLS would be moving forward with the foreclosure process. The loan is due for XXXX and a payment was made on XX/XX/XXXX. Per SLS, they never sent any notification before the letter in XXXX. And then the one from 6 months ago. Without notification, they moved forward with the foreclosure process. The foreclosure was filed with XXXX XXXX XXXX, MN, and the sale date was scheduled for XXXX Due to the lack of notification that SLS was moving forward with the foreclosure, we very limited in ways to resolve the issue. We are also working on a very skinny timeline and may not have solutions that can be provided to SLS prior to the sale.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: MN
Zip: 55345
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2024-01-14
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2024-01-10
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue: Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbe
Consumer Complaint: The first Conciliation Conference was held on XXXX XXXX. My Wife, Who is on the DEED and has a Power of Attorney, logged in to the XXXX meeting but when my name and case was called the attorney for the lender said that Complaint has not been served to Defendant and the they're moved to the next case. The next conference was scheduled on XX/XX/XXXX. On XXXX we contacted Specialized Loan Servicing and applied for the short sale approval with all necessary documents attached and asked to put Foreclosure on hold. We received an email from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX stating that our application is under review. On XX/XX/XXXX we received via mail Package of documents with the Short Sale Program Approval. On the same day we got court document stating that Defendant failed to appear to the zoom Metting on XX/XX/XXXX and the STAY IS LIFTED. We were under impression that because we applied for the short sale, we don't need to attend the Conciliation conference on XX/XX/XXXX. This file should be on HOLD.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: PA
Zip: 19006
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2024-01-10
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2024-01-06
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action
Subissue: Seized or attempted to seize your property
Consumer Complaint: Regarding complaint # XXXX SLS mentioned that they received my 2nd loan from XXXX, but in previous correspondence they said they obtained it from the trustee, which was attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX SLS stated : " With regard to the documentation received from XXXX XXXX regarding the modification of the first mortgage loan that occurred on XX/XX/XXXX, the amount capitalized into the first mortgage principal balance in the amount of {$10000.00} appears to be for delinquent interest in the amount of {$4200.00}, escrow in the amount of {$3400.00}, and fees in the amount of {$2200.00} ''. ( First of all, that information did not come from SLS. SLS never proved that they were even assigned my loan. ) If you add the escrow of {$710.00} to the {$10000.00}, the total is within XXXX cents of what SLS says I owed. The top page of the attachment is from SLS. That amount was added to the primary loan, see principal balance after transaction on the bottom page. There you have it, the 2nd loan was added to the 1st loan, as evidenced by the provisions of the modification, the increase in the 1st loan, a statement by the XXXX Rep, and I stopped receiving statements from XXXX for the 2nd loan after XX/XX/XXXX. Even though there is no proof that SLS was ever assigned my loan SLS threatened foreclosure and took me to federal court. I had to refinance my home and file bankruptcy. My family and I have undergone an incredible amount of stress. In XXXX of XXXX I paid SLS {$33000.00} under protest.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: TX
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2024-01-06
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2024-01-05
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue: Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbe
Consumer Complaint: As defined under Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA ) Fair Debt Collection Practices Act as well as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), it is required that all accounting be applied based on actual amounts that are due. I have been paying an extra {$600.00} to {$700.00} per month towards negative escrow, which has not been applied accordingly. The monthly statements issued by SLS show that the minimum monthly payments due are {$1600.00}. The principal payment is {$200.00}, with interest being {$360.00} per month, which leaves the balance {$1000.00} to be applied to escrow ( ex B ). The {$1000.00} has not been applied towards escrow due, instead it has been held in suspense accounts and re-allocated. Per CFPB rule 1026.41, the amount due, has shown more prominently than other disclosures on the page and, if the transaction has multiple payment options, the amount due falls under each of the payment options and CFPB rule. Furthermore, the rule states that the monthly payment amount, including a breakdown showing how much, if any, will be applied to principal, interest, and escrow and, if a mortgage loan has multiple payment options, a breakdown of each of the payment options along with information on whether the principal balance will increase, decrease, or stay the same for each option listed must be shown. Since there is a lack of transparency in the negative escrow accounting, we are requesting that all payments be reallocated and applied to the negative escrow amount currently listed as {$21000.00}. CFPB Rule 1024.17 also has standards listed that must be adhered to in relation to escrow. if a servicer advances funds for a borrower, then the servicer must perform an escrow account analysis before seeking repayment of the deficiency. Proper analysis is not being performed to bring the escrow account out of delinquency.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: NH
Zip: 032XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2024-01-05
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2024-01-04
Issue: False statements or representation
Subissue: Attempted to collect wrong amount
Consumer Complaint: I purchased my home 17 years ago with a first and second mortgage. The original lender, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( owned in turn by XXXX XXXX XXXX ), was known for making subprime mortgages and engaging in predatory servicing of its loans whereby it would, for example, fail to provide borrowers with timely or clear information about payment due dates and amounts owed. The second mortgage had an original loan amount of {$19000.00}, but only {$2700.00} of that amount was scheduled to be paid over the XXXX loan term, with a remaining a balloon payment of {$17000.00} due at the end of the loan. Thus, if I was unable to refinance 15 years after the loan was made, the loan was built to maximize the risk of foreclosure. In XXXX, during the economic downturn, I experienced financial hardship and became XXXX, rendering me unable to work. I entered XXXX XXXX bankruptcy. When I received a discharge in my bankruptcy later that year later, I mistakenly understood that the second mortgage debt had been eliminated as a lien on my home. After my exit from bankruptcy in XXXX, I did not receive any mortgage statements or other correspondence from the servicer, Specialized Loan Servicing ( SLS ), or any other source about the second mortgage until I received a debt verification notice from a law firm, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), in XX/XX/XXXX. ( During the same time period, I continued to receive payment invoices for the first mortgage on my home and am current on the payments. ) The lack of any correspondence about the second mortgage from XXXX until XX/XX/XXXX reinforced my mistaken understanding that the second mortgage was no longer a valid lien on my home following my bankruptcy discharge. I disputed this second mortgage and requested verification of the debt from XXXX on or about XX/XX/XXXX, but I did not receive any response until XX/XX/XXXX, when I received notice from XXXX that my home would be sold in foreclosure on XX/XX/XXXX. At this time I retained XXXX Legal Aid as counsel for help. In early XX/XX/XXXX, I communicated telephonically with SLS to ask if loss mitigation was available. I was chastised by a representative who told me that although I thought [ I ] would get away with not paying [ my ] debts, now I would lose my home. The representative eventually agreed to submit a request for loss mitigation and told me that this would pause the foreclosure process. XXXX subsequently confirmed to my counsel that the XX/XX/XXXX foreclosure sale had been canceled. A XX/XX/XXXX payoff statement from XXXX states that, in addition to a principal balance of {$19000.00}, SLS and the owner of the debt, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( " XXXX '' ), are also demanding payment of more than {$33000.00} in interest and fees, with interest accruing at the rate of 11.6 % for the past 12 years, most of which time I was not receiving any correspondence at all about the loan. I have attached a copy of the payoff statement as Exhibit A. On XX/XX/XXXX, my counsel sent a Qualified Written Request ( " QWR '' ) under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( " RESPA '' ) to SLS ( attached as Exhibit B ), and a demand letter to MRLP ( Exhibit C ). Specific deficiencies identified in the QWR include : **Improper charging of interest for time periods when no periodic mortgage statements or other required notices were being sent concerning the loan. ** SLS and XXXX are not entitled to retroactively demand strict compliance on the payment terms for periods of time when no lender or servicer was communicating with me about the loan. Under Georgia law, O.C.G.A. 13-4-23, where, as here, the nonperformance of a party to a contract is caused by the conduct of the opposite party, such conduct shall excuse the other party from performance. Because no correspondence was being provided to me to notify me as to where payments should be sent or the amount of the payment, this conduct caused me not to be able to make payments on the loan, or pursue other options I might have had with regard to the loan, and excuses me from performance on the loan during such time period. Following a mutual departure from the contract such as this, SLS and XXXX may now demand payments going forward, but are not entitled to interest and fees retroactively during the extended period when no statements or correspondence were being sent. Furthermore, the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ), and RESPA impose requirements and standards that investors and servicers must follow in providing required notices to mortgage borrowers. These requirements were not met in the handling of my account. TILA places an affirmative duty on the creditor, assignee, or servicer of a residential mortgage loan to provide periodic statements to the borrower, for each billing cycle, containing specified, detailed information regarding amounts owing under the mortgage loan. There is an exemption from the periodic statement requirement for loans that have been charged off, provided that no additional fees or interest will be charged on the account. I did not receive a periodic statement for my second mortgage loan from either the creditor, assignee, or servicer of the loan, for an approximately XXXX time period, and it was impermissible for any interest or fees to be charged during that time. When a loan is sold, assigned, or transferred, TILA also requires that the new owner of the loan provide notice to the borrower within 30 days of the assignment. Similarly, when the servicing of a mortgage loan is transferred, RESPA requires that the transferor and transferee servicers must each send notice at least 15 days before and no more than 15 days after the servicing transfer, respectively. I never received any such transfer of ownership notices concerning the second mortgage. I did not know where the loan had gone or where I should be sending payments. For violations of TILA and RESPA a borrower is entitled to recover actual damages, statutory damages, and attorneys fees. My actual damages include the accrued interest and fees I am now being charged for the extended time period when neither the lender ( s ) nor the servicer ( s ) of my second mortgage loan sent statements or notices despite being required to do so under federal law. My damages also include significant emotional distress from suddenly receiving a notice and payoff demand for over {$33000.00} in retroactive interest and fees, after having received no correspondence about the loan for such an extended period of time, and then being scheduled for foreclosure of my home and loss of my equity in order to collect on the over-inflated balance being claimed. **False, deceptive, and misleading representations in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act** The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) prohibits a debt collector from using any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of a debt. To the extent that SLS is a debt collector under the FDCPA, asserting that accrued interest is owed for a 12 year time period when neither the servicer ( s ) nor lender ( s ) were sending statements or notices to me, in violation of the express requirements of TILA and RESPA, is an inherently deceptive and misleading representation that violates both the general standard of FDCPA and also a specific provision prohibiting the use of deceptive means to attempt to collect a debt. SLS may be liable to me for actual and statutory damages, as well as attorneys fees, for these violations of the FDCPA. I disputed this second mortgage and requested verification of the debt from MRLP on or about XX/XX/XXXX, but I did not receive any response other than a foreclosure notice. The FDCPA requires that SLS cease all collection activity until written verification of the debt has been provided to me. A foreclosure sale can not proceed prior to sufficient written verification being provided ( including the documents requested in the QWR ). **Violation of the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act** The conduct by SLS and XXXX described above is both unfair and deceptive. Attempting to collect interest and fees for a period of at least 12 years when I did not receive any periodic mortgage statement from either the servicer or lender for my second mortgage loan, nor any other communication from the servicer or lender of my loan, is inherently both unfair and deceptive. Had I been provided with periodic statements and notices for my second mortgage loan during that XXXX timeframe, I could have made monthly payments on my second mortgage loan as those payments came due, pursued loss mitigation, or otherwise pursued legal rights concerning the account, and I would not now be faced with an asserted total payoff of over {$53000.00} on an actual principal balance of {$19000.00}. SLS and GHICs unfair and deceptive conduct entitles me to seek actual damages, treble damages, and attorneys fees under the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: GA
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2024-01-04
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2024-01-03
Issue: Trouble during payment process
Subissue: Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing yo
Consumer Complaint: Specialized Loan Servicing LLC ( SLS sold my loan to XXXX XXXX. I had auto-payment set up with Specialized Loan Servicing. After loan was sold, Specialized Loan Servicing did not transfer or stop my auto payment while XXXXXXXX XXXX said I was late with my payment in XX/XX/XXXX. I set up auto payment my self with XXXX XXXX and Specialized Loan Servicing redeposited my funds. The next month Specialized Loan Servicing again attempted a withdraw from my account. I called them and they said they did not request the withdraw. They said they had no evidence a transaction had occurred and they could not fix the issue. The bank said there was nothing they could do at this time which is another issue. Withdraw transaction is pending as of XXXX XXXX XXXX
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: CA
Zip: 93012
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2024-01-03
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A