SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC

2015-09-23

Scottsdale, AZ

Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Mortgage: Conventional fixed mortgage

Complaint: XXXX acting on behalf of one of my investors, Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust, has violated the Fair Review Process requiring servicers to review and respond to a request for modification within 30 days. Originally I submitted a compliant because XXXX XXXX XXXX moved forward with foreclosure procedures after receiving a full file submission XX/XX/XXXX. The day after filing their response to the CFPB compliant I was decline a modification on or about XX/XX/XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX decided to review my case again for possible modification and requested updated documentation, which was sent on XXXX XXXX via email, which they never responded to confirm receipt of documents, which is required. At that time I was told that now I qualified to be reviewed for HAMP and that 's why they were requesting additional documentation. On or about XX/XX/XXXX I called and confirmed the documents were received and submitted to underwriting for review. On XX/XX/XXXX, I called to check the status of the review and if my foreclosure sale scheduled for XX/XX/XXXX was postponed. I was told that they would not make that decision until XX/XX/XXXX. I then called on XX/XX/XXXX and the sale was still not postponed. When I followed up on XX/XX/XXXX I was told that the sale had been postponed to XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX I called to follow up on the status of my review and was told my request for modification was declined on XX/XX/XXXX and a decline letter was sent out on that day. It took XXXX XXXX XXXX 40 days for them to review my request and I had to contact them to find out I was declined. Since I filed my first CFPB compliant the phone calls from my relationship manager ceased. For the XX/XX/XXXX decline I was told it was because I did n't meet the NPV guidelines. For the second decline I was told because I declined a HAMP modification in XX/XX/XXXX. However, upon review of the HAMP guidelines, I still meet eligibility to be reviewed again for HAMP. I did not default on the HAMP Trail by completing all three required payments and HAMP mod was not completed. There is not rule against declining the modification, which would have raised my monthly payment and set my interest rate higher than my current rate after 5 years. XXXX XXXX XXXX has continued to lie to me, provide false and conflicting information and violated CFPB rules in regards to borrowers who are facing foreclosure. Due to this I am looking at filing a Chapter XXXX bankruptcy to save my house.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with non-monetary relief

Disputed: No Timely Response

2015-09-23

Bohemia, NY

Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Mortgage: Other mortgage

Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Disputed: Yes Timely Response

2015-09-23

Scottsdale, AZ

Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Mortgage: Conventional fixed mortgage

Complaint: XXXX acting on behalf of one of my investors, U.S. Bank, has violated the Fair Review Process requiring servicers to review and respond to a request for modification within 30 days. Originally I submitted a compliant because XXXX XXXX XXXX moved forward with foreclosure procedures after receiving a full file submission XX/XX/XXXX. The day after filing their response to the CFPB compliant I was decline a modification on or about XX/XX/XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX decided to review my case again for possible modification and requested updated documentation, which was sent on XXXX XXXX via email, which they never responded to confirm receipt of documents, which is required. At that time I was told that now I qualified to be reviewed for HAMP and that 's why they were requesting additional documentation. On or about XX/XX/XXXX I called and confirmed the documents were received and submitted to underwriting for review. On XX/XX/XXXX, I called to check the status of the review and if my foreclosure sale scheduled for XX/XX/XXXX was postponed. I was told that they would not make that decision until XX/XX/XXXX. I then called on XX/XX/XXXX and the sale was still not postponed. When I followed up on the XXXX I was told that the sale had been postponed to XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX I called to follow up on the status of my review and was told my request for modification was declined on XX/XX/XXXX and a decline letter was sent out on that day. It took XXXX XXXX XXXX 40 days for them to review my request and I had to contact them to find out I was declined. Since I filed my first CFPB compliant the phone calls from my relationship manager ceased. For the XX/XX/XXXX decline I was told it was because I did n't meet the NPV guidelines. For the second decline I was told because I declined a HAMP modification XX/XX/XXXX. However, upon review of the HAMP guidelines, I still meet eligibility to be reviewed again for HAMP. I did not default on the HAMP Trail by completing all three required payments and HAMP mod was not completed. There is not rule against declining the modification, which would have raised my monthly payment and set my interest rate higher than my current rate after 5 years. XXXX XXXX XXXX has continued to lie to me, provide false and conflicting information and violated CFPB rules in regards to borrowers who are facing foreclosure. Due to this I am looking at filing a Chapter XXXX bankruptcy to save my house.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with non-monetary relief

Disputed: No Timely Response

2015-09-23

Scottsdale, AZ

Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Mortgage: Conventional fixed mortgage

Complaint: Select Portfolio Servicing has violated the Fair Review Process requiring servicers to review and respond to a request for modification within 30 days. Originally I submitted a compliant because Select Portfolio Servicing moved forward with foreclosure procedures after receiving a full file submission XX/XX/XXXX. The day after filing their response to the CFPB compliant I was decline a modification on or about XX/XX/XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Select Portfolio Servicing decided to review my case again for possible modification and requested updated documentation, which was sent on XX/XX/XXXX via email, which they never responded to confirm receipt of documents, which is required. At that time I was told that now I qualified to be reviewed for HAMP and that 's why they were requesting additional documentation. On or about XX/XX/XXXX I called and confirmed the documents were received and submitted to underwriting for review. On XX/XX/XXXX, I called to check the status of the review and if my foreclosure sale scheduled for XX/XX/XXXX was postponed. I was told that they would not make that decision until XX/XX/XXXX. I then called on XX/XX/XXXX and the sale was still not postponed. When I followed up on XX/XX/XXXX I was told that the sale had been postponed to XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX I called to follow up on the status of my review and was told my request for modification was declined on XX/XX/XXXX and a decline letter was sent out on that day. It took Select Portfolio Servicing 40 days for them to review my request and I had to contact them to find out I was declined. Since I filed my first CFPB compliant the phone calls from my relationship manager ceased. For the XX/XX/XXXX decline I was told it was because I did n't meet the NPV guidelines. For the second decline I was told because I declined a HAMP modification in XX/XX/XXXX. However, upon review of the HAMP guidelines, I still meet eligibility to be reviewed again for HAMP. I did not default on the HAMP Trail by completing all three required payments and HAMP mod was not completed. There is not rule against declining the modification, which would have raised my monthly payment and set my interest rate higher than my current rate after 5 years. Select Portfolio Servicing has continued to lie to me, provide false and conflicting information and violated CFPB rules in regards to borrowers who are facing foreclosure. Due to this I am looking at filing a Chapter XXXX bankruptcy to save my house.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with non-monetary relief

Disputed: No Timely Response

2015-09-23

Las Vegas, NV

Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Mortgage: Other mortgage

Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Disputed: No Timely Response

2015-09-22

Bryan, TX

Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Mortgage: Other mortgage

Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Disputed: Yes Timely Response

2015-09-22

W Islip, NY

Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Mortgage: Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)

Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Disputed: No Timely Response

2015-09-22

Santa Susana, CA

Credit decision / Underwriting

Mortgage: Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)

Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with non-monetary relief

Disputed: No Timely Response

2015-09-22

Box Canyon, CA

Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Mortgage: Other mortgage

Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Disputed: Yes Timely Response

2015-09-22

Jupiter, FL

Loan servicing, payments, escrow account

Mortgage: Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)

Complaint: The loan modification in questions was originally submitted to XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. After its transfer to SPS, documentation was lost and had to send same information several times-all via email. There is currently a trial date scheduled and opposing counsel is giving us some resistance with continuation based on the pending loan modification. I have confirmed on XXXX different occasions that SPS has a facially complete loan modification-the latest occasion was XX/XX/XXXX. ( The remaining item that they requested on numerous occasions was originally confirmed received XX/XX/XXXX and was sent four times additionally since that time. ) We just ask that SPS please communicate with their counsel to indicate that it is facially complete to allow time for a decision on the loan modification.
Company Response: Company chooses not to provide a public response Closed with explanation

Disputed: No Timely Response

2015-09-22

Houston, TX

Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Mortgage: Conventional fixed mortgage

Complaint: Denied refinancing at a lower interest rate by SPS ~ Select Portfolio Services. This occurred while I was in XXXX with XXXX - XXXX. I had a XXXX and per doctor 's orders was not to be on my XXXX this time. I did the best I could, keeping up with my bills while only receiving partial pay of {$XXXX} per week from XXXX/workmen 's comp. At this time I was employed by a XXXX. Approximately two weeks prior to returning to my job they made the decision not to hold my job for me any longer, and I was terminated on XXXX XXXX, 2011. I got very behind on everything during this time period and applied to SPS to refinance my home at a lower interest rate, in order to lower my monthly mortgage payments. They rejected my application, while still charging me a 10.75 % interest rate on my home mortgage loan. According to current laws this is predatory lending. They have me over a barrel, as I had gotten farther and farther behind. I kept appealing their decision and finally they gave me a proposal for repayment which XXXX my monthly mortgage payment from approximately {$850.00} per mo ( which I was unable to afford ) to over {$1500.00} per month in order to repay the monies that I owe them. All the while the interest rate has never been lowered and is still the 10.75 %. We have been fighting them with an attorney for over a year now and they recently denied our filing stating we could afford the {$1500.00} per month for a mortgage payment. That is currently 47.5 % of my gross monthly income, which puts a real financial hardship on our household when considering other monthly living expenses. .
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Disputed: No Timely Response

2015-09-21

Grover Beach, CA

Loan servicing, payments, escrow account

Mortgage: Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)

Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Disputed: No Timely Response

2015-09-21

Mount Dora, FL

Application, originator, mortgage broker

Mortgage: Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)

Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Disputed: Yes Timely Response

2015-09-21

South Florida, FL

Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Mortgage: Conventional fixed mortgage

Complaint: Borrower completed the HAMP Trial Plan Payments and was given a final loan modification with a due date of XX/XX/XXXX. The agreement was returned in the Banks Prepaid Envelope. On XX/XX/XXXX we were notified the final loan modification had not been received ; see call logs below. Another agreement would be sent to our office to be executed. We sent a XXXX agreement to SPS which was confirmed received on several occasions ; see call logs below. On XX/XX/XXXX we were told it was not accepted as it did not appear to be an original ; see call logs below. On XX/XX/XXXX we were told the LM was received and being processed.. On XX/XX/XXXX the bank stated the final lm was denied. SPS has violated the CFPB guidelines by giving the borrower the run around for a period of over 3 months and incorrect updates as to the status of the final loan modification by several representatives not assigned to the file. The assigned Representative XXXX XXXX has not returned our phone calls and has abandoned the borrower 's loan modification process during the final stage of the loan modification putting the borrower at risk of losing their final loan modification. Another representative stated the LM was rejected because it was not notarized. The final Loan Modification does not give directions or instructions stating the final LM must be notarized nor does it have a notary section which indicates it must be notarized. The borrower has completed their requirements for the HAMP and wish to continue with the HAMP Agreement. The bank is returning the borrower 's paymentws now putting the borrower at further jeopordy and risk. Call logs : *Completed- [ Call ] - [ XXXX-Bank Status Call ] - [ Received call from Lender-XXXX . Contact Information : XXXX Extension : XXXXStatus : Representative advised Final loan modification documents have not been received by the Lender. She requested documents to be expedited and re-sent to our office. ] Author : mking on XXXX XXXX - ( Case related comment ). *On Completed XX/XX/XXXX *- [ Call ] - [ XXXX-Bank Status Call ] - [ Contacted Lender-Spoke to : XXXX XXXX . Representative confirmed receipt of final modification as posted to client 's account on XX/XX/XXXX. Currently under review to be finalized. Client 's payment for XXXX was received. However, at an incorrect amount. Amount of modified payment is : {$2600.00}. Lender received a payment of {$2600.00}. A total of XXXX cents is needed asap. ] Author : mking on XXXX XXXX - ( Case related comment ) *Completed- [ Call ] - [ XXXX-Bank Status Call ] - [ Contacted Lender-Spoke to : XXXX XXXX . Representative confirmed final loan modification documents show as received on XX/XX/XXXX. However, loan has not been finalized. Representative is unsure as to why? She placed an escalation on file to have their closing department look into this issue in order to have LM finalized asap. Client needs to make a payment of XXXX cents for the month of XXXX. Client can call in and make the payment over the phone at no charge to client. ] Author : mking on XXXX XXXX - ( Case related comment ) *Completed- [ Call ] - [ XXXX-Bank Status Call ] - [ Contacted Lender-Spoke to : XXXX XXXX , Employee ID : XXXX. Payment made over the phone with representative. Amount of payment : {$1.00}. Confirmation Number : XXXX. ] Author : mking on XXXX XXXX - ( Case related comment ) *Completed- [ Call ] - [ XXXX- Final LM ] - [ Spoke to XXXX XXXX to confirm if the final LM was received due to letter dated XX/XX/XXXX stating it was not received yet. LM was received on XX/XX/XXXX. ] Author : sgarcia on XXXX XXXX - ( Case related comment )
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with non-monetary relief

Disputed: No Timely Response

2015-09-20

San Francisco, CA

Loan servicing, payments, escrow account

Mortgage: Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)

Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Disputed: Yes Timely Response

2015-09-19

Key Biscayne, FL

Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Mortgage: Other mortgage

Complaint: SPS Select Portfoloio Servincing , Inc. continues to send someone every month on Saturday to deliver notes to contact them at XXXX. In addition, they take photos of the property.
Company Response: Company chooses not to provide a public response Closed with explanation

Disputed: Yes Timely Response

2015-09-18

Santa Barbara, CA

Application, originator, mortgage broker

Mortgage: Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)

Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Disputed: No Timely Response

2015-09-18

San Francisco, CA

Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Mortgage: Other mortgage

Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Disputed: Yes Timely Response

2015-09-18

Auburn, WA

Disclosure verification of debt

Debt collection: Mortgage

Not given enough info to verify debt
Company Response: Company chooses not to provide a public response Closed with explanation

Disputed: No Timely Response

2015-09-18

Elyria, OH

Loan servicing, payments, escrow account

Mortgage: Other mortgage

Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Disputed: No Timely Response

2015-09-18

FL

Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Mortgage: Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)

Complaint: Due to a loss of my job and other financial issues my mortgage company at the time XXXX began the foreclosure process on me. On XXXX XXXX XXXX I spoke with XXXX at XXXX XXXX in the Loss Mitigation dept. she said we could do a trial payment for 3 months, then it will be reviewed for a loan mod. On XXXX/XXXX/XXXX I spoke with XXXX at XXXX, she said our loan modification was denied and for us not to make anymore payments. In XXXX of XXXX we discovered we might have a sinkhole on our property and filed a claim with our XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. They did a survey of our property with special X-ray machines and stated we did n't have a sinkhole, our attorney hired a specialist who had a lot of questions about their reports. After a lengthy process we finally settled out of court in XXXX of XXXX and received a settlement check for {$160000.00} Our attorney XXXX XXXX advised us to not sign the check and send it into XXXX without having some type of signed written agreement on how it would be split up, he had a previous client with the same issue that we had and XXXX took the check and paid off his mortgage and did not leave the client enough money to repair the house. . Our new attorney XXXX XXXX was hired and he contacted XXXX to try to get an agreement on how to handle the division of the check ( he had to file an XXXX XXXX ), so that we could avoid racking up late fees on our mortgage etc. We had numerous hearings with the Honorable Judge XXXX XXXX, he would ask XXXX/SPS ( at some point XXXX sold or transferred our mortgage to SPS ). to bring someone to the hearing with the authority to make a decision on this and they never would, ( this happened quite a few times.So the case kept getting postponed meanwhile our late fees and interest kept adding up. Finally we agreed on the division of the check in XXXX XXXX ( see attached court documents ). We finally got the house fixed and moved back in on XXXX of XXXX. The problem with this is we had to come up with {$13000.00} of our own money to cover our expense when we moved out of the house for repairs. Per the joint stipulation agreement we were to be out of the house for 3 months and it would be finished and we would move back in. The delay by XXXX / SPS in getting the check to the XXXX caused the delays that cost us the $ XXXXXXXXOn XXXX/XXXX/XXXX we hired a new attorney XXXX out of XXXX Florida . In late XXXX XXXX I received a letter from SPS dated XXXX/XXXX/XXXX that we have been approved for a HAMP Tier 1 Trial Modification, the problem is they have made several errors in there calculations of what my home is worth and my income. XXXX/SPS has repeatedly disregarded what the judge in our case ordered and was never held accountable to this.
Company Response: Company chooses not to provide a public response Closed with explanation

Disputed: No Timely Response

2015-09-18

Van Nuys, CA

Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Mortgage: Conventional fixed mortgage

Complaint: Plaintiffs, at all times relevant to this complaint are owners of the real property known as XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, CA XXXX ( hereinafter " Subject Property '' ). Plaintiffs acquired a home mortgage refinance loan forthe Subject Property from lender, XXXX XXXX The mortgage loan was secured by a Deed of Trust executed on or about XXXX XXXX, XXXX. Defendant SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING ( hereinafter " BANKS '' ), is the mortgage servicer of the XXXX secured lien and the purported beneficiary of the Deed of Trust used to secure the mortgage loan to Plaintiffs to purchase the subject property. Sometime in early XXXX XXXX, Plaintiffs received a Notice of Default from XXXX XXXX XXXX after having bought the loan from XXXX XXXX. Plaintiffs have attempted to short sell this property under the government Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives program, but has been unable to do so. On or about XXXX XXXX, SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING issued a Notice of Default against the Plaintiffs after having bought the loan from XXXX XXXX XXXX. Despite continuous efforts for the Plaintiffs to apply for a short sale for the defaulted note, the multiple lenders involved have not cooperated to date and have continually put the property up for foreclosure auction without legitimately reviewing the Plaintiffs for a short sale.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Disputed: No Timely Response

2015-09-18

Van Nuys, CA

Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Mortgage: Conventional fixed mortgage

Complaint: Plaintiffs, at all times relevant to this complaint are owners of the real property known as XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, CA XXXX ( hereinafter " Subject Property '' ). Plaintiffs acquired a home mortgage refinance loan forthe Subject Property from lender, XXXX XXXX The mortgage loan was secured by a Deed of Trust executed on or about XXXX XXXX, XXXX. Defendant SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING ( hereinafter " BANKS '' ), is the mortgage servicer of the XXXX secured lien and the purported beneficiary of the Deed of Trust used to secure the mortgage loan to Plaintiffs to purchase the subject property. Sometime in early XXXX XXXX, Plaintiffs received a Notice of Default from XXXX XXXX XXXX after having bought the loan from XXXX XXXX. Plaintiffs have attempted to short sell this property under the government Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives program, but has been unable to do so. On or about XXXX XXXX, SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING issued a Notice of Default against the Plaintiffs after having bought the loan from XXXX XXXX XXXX. Despite continuous efforts for the Plaintiffs to apply for a short sale for the defaulted note, the multiple lenders involved have not cooperated to date and have continually put the property up for foreclosure auction without legitimately reviewing the Plaintiffs for a short sale.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Disputed: No Timely Response

2015-09-17

Tampa, FL

Credit decision / Underwriting

Mortgage: Other mortgage

Company Response: Company chooses not to provide a public response Closed with explanation

Disputed: Yes Timely Response

2015-09-17

Fort Lauderdale, FL

Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Mortgage: Conventional fixed mortgage

Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Disputed: No Timely Response