SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC
Consumer Complaints
There are over 9109 complaints on file for SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC. Dated between 2019-12-06 and 2012-02-28.
Complaints Page 37
2019-03-14
New Bern, NC
Trouble during payment process
Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation
2019-03-14
Lees Summit, MO
Attempts to collect debt not owed
Debt collection: Mortgage debt
Debt was paid
Complaint: The extortionists have confirmed that they will foreclose on a XXXX balance I DO NOT OWE.
I HAVE LITERALLY PAID OVER ONE MILLION DOLLARS for the {$210000.00} some actually gave to me and an {$82000.00} line of credit that was paid off and released in XXXX.
Of the XXXX dollar payments I made {$390000.00} was paid to principal and {$220000.00} interest has been reported to the IRS.
I want the extortionists serving this debt they say I owe to provide me with exact application of the other {$450000.00}. And answer why {$390000.00} didnt pay off the {$82000.00} second mortgage AND the {$260000.00} First mortgage!?
This left {$44000.00} that paid the {$44000.00} paid to credit cards from the second mortgage I already paid!
In addition the XXXX 1st mortgage paid off {$260000.00} at XXXX in XXXX.
I believe this amount paid off a loan on my duplex on which XXXX XXXX foreclosed for a {$53000.00} balance. I believe this balance is the remaining amount due on a {$260000.00} loan! This loan was released for the SECOND TIME in XXXX. + + a XXXX second mortgage that was subordinated to the loan on my duplex then paid off and released in XXXX.
Next a second {$260000.00} loan was released AGAIN for the second time in XXXX.
I NEVER HAD A {$260000.00} line of credit!
I did not sign nor agree or informed of any XXXX mortgage that apparently they think secured the UNSECURED credt cards DISCHARGED IN BANKRUPTCY! In addition I believe I already paid back 100 % of the principal balances of these cards.
Moreover these cards were used to pay the disbursements to taxes and insurance for which I ALREADY PAID! These cards were - no - WERE THESE CARDS PREPAID?
The bankruptcy I filed in XXXX to keep my house ( but they took the duplex anyway ).
Wasnt discharged until XXXX.
DID ANY OF THE PAYMENTS I HAVE MADE TO THE MODIFICATION GO TO CREDIT CARDS?
If so I want them to provide proof to XXXX XXXX and to the XXXX vs XXXX settlement for which my claim was denied for lack of documentation- I CAN NOT PROVIDE! I believe that {$190000.00} assets abandoned by the trustee was the money I paid to a VA loan I DID NOT MORTGAGE. NO ONE GAVE ME ANY MONEY. I PAID OFF THE SELLERS LOAN.
I PAID ALL 345 payments + {$5100.00} to a XXXX {$33000.00} loan. I also paid all of the taxes and insurance due and disbursed. I paid the seller {$10000.00} to assume a {$31000.00} balance in XXXX. There were no taxes paid after XXXX. Insurance was paid through XXXX. I forwarded the {$1600.00} refund to the buyer ( although I just realized all of it was mine. ) I dont want them to pay me back by paying {$1900.00} on my house this year. I want them to pay me back the {$54000.00} that paid off my duplex to XXXX XXXX and give me back the full {$260000.00} value they thought my duplex was worth.
The extortionists need to use the {$190000.00} in the escrow account and the extra {$100000.00} Ive paid since to pay off this {$200000.00} balance I have already paid and dont owe.
The Cfpb needs to piece all of this together for the one first mortgage Ive paid off to XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX ( fleet ).
The ONE second mortgage I paid off at XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX The one loan on my duplex I paid off to XXXX XXXX and XXXX ( and XXXX ) This is outrageous unless it is legal to steal {$720000.00} a duplex my house and my reputation. for which I have now paid including the apparently prepaid credit cards It seems Ive paid twice. And my duplex for a FRAUDULENT LOAN WHAT IS THE CONSUMER PROTECTION BUREAU GOING TO DO ABOUT THIS?
The money is now being laundered through XXXX XXXX series 113.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation
2019-03-14
Lakewood, WA
Struggling to pay mortgage
Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage
Complaint: LOAN # XXXX BORROWER : XXXX XXXX PROPERTY ADDRESS : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, WA # XXXX XXXX ** We are trying to negotiate a short sale on the above referenced property I was advised the investor is countering the offer that is currently price at $ XXXXto increase to {$160000.00}. I am disputing this and feel the dispute is warranted because the XXXX that SPS currently has on file values the property at {$140000.00}. Which is in line with our current offer is and should be approved since the offer on the short sale is fair market value. The investors expecting to receive above fair market value according to their counter is unethical and no up to distressed homeowner protection laws.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation
2019-03-14
FL
Trouble during payment process
Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage
Complaint: Last year I paid over 4400 dollars in escrow shortages and issues when my mortgage co SPS serving misapplied funds reduce principal payment and not to escrows or actual payments. I paid in XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX ) and again in XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ) over after they said I still had an escrow shortage. After 3 months and multiple calls, I finally got an outside corporate rep to escalate the issue after my manual calculation showed where the error was in XX/XX/XXXX/ XX/XX/XXXX of last year, I was told my account had been corrected.
Today I receive a shortage of escrow/escrow analysis document showing not only was the last analysis used ( they had to manually correct it since it was incorrect ) but they show I now have additional escrow shortage. After speaking with an account rep she verified to me that they AGAIN have been misapplying funds and have not taken out escrow out of my payment since XX/XX/2017. I have payment statements showing I have a ZERO escrow shortage and that my payment reflects escrow YET they are still misapplying funds.
I am very upset and feel these applications issues from last year and now again has put undue strain on me mentally and my marriage. I have ZERO confidence this will be handled. I want to complain about their bookkeeping and their practices of amounts due and owing. If I did not catch this error I feel they would have again asked per the letter for me to pay {$4900.00} and additional charges for shortages. This issue If I have to pay any additional amount would put me at risk of foreclosure because I can not pay additional escrow or payments as it is difficult to make payments. Maybe this is a calculated way to default consumers?
This company should be fined for the application of funds, improper charges, misleading information, and unprofessional practices. My next recourse if they do not fix this is to hire an attorney and sue for unfair accounting practices and fraud.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation
2019-03-14
RI
Trouble during payment process
Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage
Complaint: Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, UT XXXX is habitually in violation of Federal Reserve Reg Z. Specifically, Section 226.36 ( c ) Crediting Payments as of the Date of Receipt.
They are posting payments as-of their processing date, rather than the date received as required under Reg Z. This results in days of additional interest charges to my account.
Payments are sent via my 3rd party bill pay service that will attest to date received by.
SPS seems to lack controls and appropriate policies and procedures to insure compliance.
They have failed to comply with requests to supply me with the time stamped received payment envelope.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation
2019-03-13
Bostonia, CA
Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage
Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage
Complaint: SPS 2nd : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX CA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Before we begin it is important to note that SPS services both the 1st and 2nd loans on this property, and that they belong to different investors, with differing guidelines, that are in conflict with one another. This creates many problems when it comes to short sales, or any other type of negotiation, as they can not best protect either investor in a situation where the demands from each investor require the other to lower their net proceeds. SPS does not allow a prospective buyer to bring in additional monies to satisfy a demand from a junior lien holder, and in the State of California, a seller is never allowed to contribute any monies to satisfy demands. So that means the offer on the table is the only amount of money we have to work with to satisfy all liens on a property.
The time line below shows the level of gross incompetence and possible purposeful negligence of the underwriting department in the review for loss mitigation on BOTH loans for this property. I have highlighted with *** the particularly problematic issues and communications. They have 2 sets of rules that are in direct conflict with one another. They should have known that there was no way for them to work out this loss mitigation file.
XX/XX/XXXX Submitted to SPS offer was {$430000.00} XX/XX/XXXX Got value back of XXXX. We were asked to increase the net but not told what they required.
XX/XX/XXXX Called the SPS Ombudsman to see if they could find out what the minimum required net is, and they were unable to tell me.
XX/XX/XXXX - We sent market comps and an inspection report to support our offer of XXXX.
XX/XX/XXXX Rep at ombudsmans office said we were about 6k off minimum net required. We revised the HUD to reflect an increase to the net proceeds to the 1st trust deed by XXXX and sent that back to SPS XX/XX/XXXX Per Ombudsman, no response to our higher net.
XX/XX/XXXX Called ombudsman, no response. Ombudsman sent message to underwriting to please get response XXXX Per the Ombudsman, underwriting somehow managed to close the review on XXXX yet the ombudsman never got notice of that, and wasn't apparent in the database. Instead, underwriting approved the XXXX 's for a repayment plan. The ombudsman can do NOTHING until one of the XXXX 's call in to decline that repayment on a recorded line. they can call the ombudsman to do so, to make sure it gets done right. we need to send all short and offer docs again to both XXXX and XXXX along with a letter requesting rush review due to us thinking we were in review for an entire month and no one ever told us we weren't.
XX/XX/XXXX Resubmitted entire file and the homeowner called the ombudsman to decline payment plan that was never requested.
XX/XX/XXXX Per XXXX in the Ombudsman department, the underwriter on the 1st denied the offer again wanting a further increased net. Yet again, they refused to provide us what net they wanted, making this a very frustrating guessing game for the buyers and the sellers.
XX/XX/XXXX We increased the net again, and resubmitted the new offer.
XX/XX/XXXX Underwriting for the 2nd demanded a corrected RMA and we sent that back on the same day XX/XX/XXXX Ombudsman told us that both loans were active in short sale review.
XX/XX/XXXX We were told it looked like the 1st and 2nd were negotiating between each other and to expect decision by XX/XX/XXXX.
XX/XX/XXXX Finally got word that the investor for the 1st Trust Deed approved the short sale and that now the file can go to the investor to the 2nd for approval. As is normal for ALL short sales we do with SPS, the net to the 2nd was {$8500.00}. It is important to note here, that SPS never allows more than XXXX to go to a junior lien on any short sale, except in some GSE situations where the guidelines state the maximum is XXXX. We were told by SPS that they had internally approved the 2nd and just needed investor signoff.
XXXX We were now told that the 2nd is requiring no less than 25,000 to approve the short sale, on a loan of XXXX. This is where the conflict of interest comes into play when the same company is servicing the 1st and 2nd for different investors. In NO short sale would SPS ever allow 30 % of the UPB to go to a 2nd when the 1st is still short. We were asked to revise the HUD showing XXXX to the 2nd. At that point I informed the Ombudsman that I believe we would then have a problem with the 1st, as we had already been fighting over meeting their net proceeds and per their investors policy of not allowing any 3rd party including the buyer or agents to contribute to satisfy junior liens, and the State of Californias law that sellers may not contribute in a short sale, this would then result in a substantial decrease to the net on the 1st. Ombudsman still asked us to send the HUD showing increased net to the 2nd, and decreased net to the 1st. We sent it same day.
XXXX Ombudsman confirmed receipt of new HUD and attached it to both accounts.
XXXX Ombudsman escalated issue again for resolution on the issues with both the 1st and 2nd nets.
**** At this point I started calling twice a day for updates**** XX/XX/XXXX Still nothing back explained to ombudsman that based on the 1st TD approval letter and the verbal that the 2nd had been internally approved, that the buyer started working on their loan. Now their rate lock is expiring and asked them to please escalate again. Was told that they would attempt to escalate this to the highest level of management to get it going. Was also reassured that the issues for the 1st and the 2nd were escalated and tied together.
XXXX Was told investor for 2nd has approved the file, but it needed to go through QC and there was nothing they could do regarding the net issues for the 1st until the letter for the 2nd had been issued even though we had been told repeatedly that they were escalated TOGETHER.
XX/XX/XXXX Was told that the ombudsman had this escalated to the highest level and they send a message to find out what was taking so long.
XX/XX/XXXX. Was told by ombudsman department that it had notes in the system for the 2nd from the 8th that it was being worked on by XXXX.
XXXX Was told by ombudsman that this had only been sent to QC on the XXXX. We asked how that could possibly be the case and referenced our previous notes, we were then told it had failed QC on the XXXX but there were no notes as to why and that it was sent back to QC on the XXXX and escalated again.
XXXX. Was told that the 2nd TD NEVER SENT THE FILE TO THE INVESTOR. They had NO EXPLANATION about all the times I was told it was approved and the approval letter was in the QC department. At this point it is obvious that we have been lied to throughout the entire process with SPSs 2nd TD department. ************Keep in mind we started this short sale with SPS on XX/XX/XXXX, so we have been LIED TO FOR OVER FOUR MONTHS. They have harmed not only their own investor ( s ) and their borrower, but also the buyer as they are preventing them from finding another property in this difficult market.
I want SPS fined to the maximum amount allowed by law, I want the conflict of interest investigated and I want the short sale approved AS IT STANDS for both the 1st and the 2nd liens and I want SPS to be required to make up the difference for their investors.
**See attached 1st TD Approval Letter.
CC : US Ho
use Committee on Financial Services Chairwoman XXXX XXXX.
Attorney General XXXX XXXX
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation
2019-03-13
Doral, FL
Trouble during payment process
Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation
2019-03-13
Clermont, FL
Struggling to pay mortgage
Mortgage: Other type of mortgage
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation
2019-03-13
W Sacramento, CA
Struggling to pay mortgage
Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation
2019-03-13
Auburn, NJ
False statements or representation
Debt collection: Mortgage debt
Attempted to collect wrong amount
Complaint: The following is in response to Select Portfolio Servicings ( SPS ) response ( XXXX ) dated dated XX/XX/XXXX andXX/XX/XXXX response ( XX/XX/XXXX ) dated XX/XX/XXXX. Please allow me to outline my continued unresolved issues/concerns and provide additional indisputable documentation of SPS 's and XX/XX/XXXX fraudulent activity and misrepresentation. First, both SPS and XXXX assert the property address associated with the alleged note and mortgage as XXXX XXXX XXXX, NY XXXX. My deceased father 's last address was XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NY XXXX. However, in the past this property was assigned the following addresses over the fifty years he lived there. They include : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, NY XXXX ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX NY XXXX ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, NY XXXX ; and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NY XXXX, and lastly, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NY XXXX. XXXX, NY is a village in the town of XXXX, NY XXXX. Secondly, Tax Map # XXXX also associated with the alleged mortgage does NOT represent a single property. It consist of multiple parcels ( 3 ), including Deeds XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ), XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) and XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ). The only affected Deed, as described in the alleged mortgages, is XXXX ( XXXX ) consisting of approx. XXXX acres. My deceased father 's residence is not located on this parcel. His residence is located on associated Deed XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ). This is all verified by the attached document which includes a very detailed title search report conducted by XXXX XXXX XXXX. The documentation is indisputable and proves the fraudulent and misrepresentation SPS and XXXX continue to perpetrate. SPS ( AKA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), XXXX, or any other associated entity has never had, or have, a security interest in my deceased father 's personal residence, which is located on a parcel totally unassociated with the alleged mortgage. See attached documentation for verified proof. Not only has XXXX misrepresented the facts when they sold the alleged note and mortgage to XXXX, SPS continues to threaten legal action against my father 's estate ( foreclosure, forced placed insurance, etc. ) Furthermore, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and SPS defrauded investors. They have securitized this alleged note and mortgage, without the required due diligence, and continue to misrepresent the facts to investors, by claiming they have a security interest in a property in which they absolutely do not. This misrepresentation is both unconscionable and despicable. Their actions need to be addressed with appropriate consequences.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation
2019-03-13
Auburn, NJ
False statements or representation
Debt collection: Mortgage debt
Attempted to collect wrong amount
Complaint: The following is in response to Select Portfolio Servicings ( SPS ) response ( XXXX ) dated dated XX/XX/ and XXXX XXXX response ( XXXX ) dated XX/XX/XXXX. Please allow me to outline my continued unresolved issues/concerns and provide additional indisputable documentation of SPS 's and XXXX fraudulent activity and misrepresentation. First, both SPS and XXXX assert the property address associated with the alleged note and mortgage as XXXX XXXX XXXX, NY XXXX. My deceased father 's last address was XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NY XXXX. However, in the past this property was assigned the following addresses over the fifty years he lived there. They include : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, NY XXXX ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX NY XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX NY XXXX ; and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX NY XXXX, and lastly, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX NY XXXX. XXXX, NY is a village in the town of XXXX, NY XXXX. Secondly, Tax Map # XXXX also associated with the alleged mortgage does NOT represent a single property. It consist of multiple parcels ( 3 ), including Deeds XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX ( XXXX ) and XXXX ( XXXX ). The only affected Deed, as described in the alleged mortgages, is XXXX ( XXXX ) consisting of approx. .25 acres. My deceased father 's residence is not located on this parcel. His residence is located on associated Deed XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ). This is all verified by the attached document which includes a very detailed title search report conducted by XXXX XXXX XXXX. The documentation is indisputable and proves the fraudulent and misrepresentation SPS and Beneficial continue to perpetrate. SPS ( AKA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), Beneficial, or any other associated entity has never had, or have, a security interest in my deceased father 's personal residence, which is located on a parcel totally unassociated with the alleged mortgage. See attached documentation for verified proof. Not only has Beneficial misrepresented the facts when they sold the alleged note and mortgage to XXXX, SPS continues to threaten legal action against my father 's estate ( foreclosure, forced placed insurance, etc. ) Furthermore, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and SPS defrauded investors. They have securitized this alleged note and mortgage, without the required due diligence, and continue to misrepresent the facts to investors, by claiming they have a security interest in a property in which they absolutely do not. This misrepresentation is both unconscionable and despicable. Their actions need to be addressed with appropriate consequences.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation
2019-03-13
Miami, FL
Trouble during payment process
Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation
2019-03-12
Catalina, AZ
Trouble during payment process
Mortgage: Other type of mortgage
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation
2019-03-12
Martinsburg, WV
Struggling to pay mortgage
Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation
2019-03-12
IN
Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem
Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports: Credit reporting
Difficulty submitting a dispute or getting information about a dispute over the phone
Complaint: SPS took over my mortgage as of XX/XX/XXXX. I received my first statement in XX/XX/XXXX. I noticed it had a caption regarding bankruptcy. I called and they stated it was because I had a bankruptcy associated with my social security number. But that I am in good standings with them. I started a re-finance thru another company and when it came time to view my payment history, they stated there was none on my credit bureau since XXXX XXXX was paid in full. I called SPS back XX/XX/XXXX and they stated that my home was discharged in bankruptcy and by law they could not report to credit bureau. I told them no, my bankruptcy was discharged in XXXX and I assumed the mortgage in XXXX. I was advised to upload the documents and I was not allowed to speak to the bankruptcy department until I did. XX/XX/XXXX I uploaded all requested documents to their website. XX/XX/XXXX Spoke with XXXX XXXX @ SPS he stated no changes. XX/XX/XXXX spoke with XXXX and requested a supervisor. XX/XX/XXXX Spoke with supervisor XXXX XXXX and she stated she would escalate the review, it would be taken care of 14 business days versus the 30 days. XX/XX/XXXX Spoke with XXXX XXXX she stated no way to expedite. XX/XX/XXXX spoke with XXXX XXXX and again got no where so I asked for a supervisor again. I was transferred to XXXX XXXX he stated should have an answer by Friday XX/XX/XXXX. Called XX/XX/XXXX spoke with XXXX XXXX with no updates. XX/XX/XXXX Spoke with customer service rep and requested a supervisor, they stated all of them were busy and they would call me by end of business day. XX/XX/XXXX No call from supervisor, called and XXXX XXXX answered ; I again requested a supervisor. I was transferred to XXXX XXXX She stated their bankruptcy department agreed with my documentation and that advocacy department now has the file for the credit updates. It is now XX/XX/XXXX after the 30 day review with nothing updated or corrected.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation
2019-03-12
El Segundo, CA
Struggling to pay mortgage
Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation
2019-03-11
Babylon, NY
Struggling to pay mortgage
Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation
2019-03-11
North Hollywood, CA
Struggling to pay mortgage
Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation
2019-03-10
Charleston, SC
Trouble during payment process
Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation
2019-03-10
Peoria, AZ
Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage
Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation
2019-03-09
Newport Beach, CA
Struggling to pay mortgage
Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation
2019-03-08
College Hill, PA
Struggling to pay mortgage
Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation
2019-03-08
San Diego, CA
Trouble during payment process
Mortgage: Other type of mortgage
Complaint: On XX/XX/XXXX I overpaid my 2nd mtg by {$1200.00}. I by my mistake sent in a check in the amount of {$1600.00}, but it should have been in the amount of {$370.00}. When I found out my mistake while reconciling my bank statement, I immediately called Select Portfolio Servicing and let them know my mistake and asked them to send me the difference I overpaid via a check by mail. This call was made back on XX/XX/XXXX. Since then I have made numerous follow up calls regarding my check, each time I have been given the run around about receiving my check. I have been told it was mailed out regular mail on XX/XX/XXXX, I was told by supervisor XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) on XX/XX/XXXX that the check was overnighted via XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX but could not give me a tracking # because cashier dept was closed at the time and he would call me back the following day ( XX/XX/XXXX ) with that info. XXXX called me back the next day ( XX/XX/XXXX ) and said there was no tracking # to be found so he requested that they send out another check via overnight, but again he said that he would have to contact cashier dept again to get the tracking # and he would call me back, but he never did. I have sent them a copy of my bank acct statement that the funds where withdrawn from my acct as proof that they requested and to this day I have received nothing but stories.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation
2019-03-08
Lees Summit, MO
Attempts to collect debt not owed
Debt collection: Mortgage debt
Debt was paid
Complaint: I continue to dispute the debt and the payments I am making to the extortionists There was no balloon payment to XXXX XXXX loan paid off in XXXX.
The balance was paid off by the XXXX loan paid off in XXXX.
The XXXX card was a fraudulent lien on a mortgage I assumed in XXXX I did not refinance.
No one gave me any money. I did not borrow any money I paid {$75000.00} to the escrow account for less This is the {$27000.00} XXXX card.
1. It is unsecured 2. Discharged in bankruptcy 3. It was prepaid 4. I used {$19000.00} with Interest 5. I paid back {$16000.00}.
6. I did not owe {$3000.00} interest.
I owe them {$0.00}.
They owe me {$27000.00} + XXXX they were just paid.
They did not pay my taxes and insurance I already paid in my house
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation
2019-03-08
Trouble during payment process
Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation