Specialized Loan Servicing LLC
Consumer Complaints
There are over 4954 complaints on file for Specialized Loan Servicing LLC. Dated between 2019-12-06 and 2012-04-23.
Complaints Page 34
2019-01-15
Cheverly, MD
Struggling to pay mortgage
Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage
Complaint: I received a letter from a debt collector Lawyers Office stating that I had 30 days from receipt of the letter to validate the alleged debt. I have replied to the Lawyer 's Office, My document is attached.I would like for the those stated as the RESPONDENT in my Notice of Dispute to respond to the dispute letter from me.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response Closed with explanation
2019-01-14
Springfield, MO
Trouble during payment process
Mortgage: Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)
Complaint: I filed for bankruptcy, and the company has retaliated by blocking me from accessing my account. I am no longer able to check when payments are due, how much is due, tax information, payment history, or anything else. They refuse to send statements, so I can't get the information there either. Without having this information available, I am at risk of losing my home, and that is their whole purpose in denying me access to MY information. Contacting then numerous times has had no results. They are also violating Federal Bankruptcy laws by retaliating.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response Closed with explanation
2019-01-14
San Diego, CA
Struggling to pay mortgage
Mortgage: Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)
Complaint: I submitted to my servicer who has both the first lien mortgage and the second lien mortgage. They denied me the modification of the first but they gave me a 1 percent on the second with a defer o XXXX and XXXX.
Then I got my statement on the second they charged me XXXX all entered on the same day as XX/XX/2018. They put me on default but my payment was only XXXX per month.
I need your help as these lenders and servicers are repeating errors that the National Mortgage Settlement and the Homeowners Bill of Rights was give to assist consumers.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response Closed with explanation
2019-01-10
Ormond Beach, FL
Trouble during payment process
Mortgage: Other type of mortgage
Company Response: Closed with explanation
2019-01-10
Fred, VA
Struggling to pay mortgage
Mortgage: Other type of mortgage
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response Closed with explanation
2019-01-09
FL
Trouble during payment process
Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage
Complaint: Specialized Loan Servicing ( SLS ) acquired my mortgage including servicing beginning on or about XX/XX/XXXX. The mortgage was previously originated and serviced by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX. At origination and at the time of the acquisition/servicing transfer to SLS, the loan was only escrowed for property taxes. It was not for insurance as the condominium master policies were provided at origination and were sufficient for closing. It is extremely important to note that my loan was originated without a requirement or condition for me to have an HO-6 insurance policy.
On XX/XX/XXXX SLS claims to have sent me a first notice of expiration of a condominium unit owners policy. I never received the first notice from SLS. On XX/XX/XXXX SLS sent me a second notice which I did receive. Shortly thereafter I called and verbally spoke to SLS loan servicing department to inform them that my loan was originated without an HO-6 policy and that it was not required at origination. SLS was only able to respond that the HO-6 policy was required by law in Florida. I informed them that it was required in Florida in XXXX but an amendment was made to the Florida laws in XXXX in which the requirement was removed. The SLS representative did not take the time to consider the correct information I relayed to her and just kept saying that HO-6 insurance was required in Florida. I then called a second time to see if I could speak to a rationale person at SLS and again communicated to SLS that it erroneously was requiring me to have an HO-6 insurance policy. Again I explained to the representative that Florida laws were amended in XXXX and that any explicit requirement that condominiums must have an HO-6 policy was removed. Since the SLS representative continued to communicate to me that Florida law requires me to have an HO-6 policy, I specifically asked the representative to have SLS Legal send me evidence that Florida had such a requirement. The representative stated that someone would research and call me back. On XX/XX/XXXX a SLS representative named XXXX XXXX ( spelling may be wrong ) left me a voicemail requiring me again to have an HO-6 policy and to send evidence of an HO-6 policy. She also stated that it was Required by the State of Florida which is not correct. I have this voicemail saved as evidence that SLS gave me incorrect and misleading information. Although I requested it, SLS never provided me in writing any legal citation that I was required in the state of Florida to maintain an HO-6 insurance policy. On XX/XX/XXXX SLS force placed insurance costing {$5100.00} covering XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. This amount of force placed insurance impacted my monthly loan payment. My loan payment increased {$1200.00} ( 77 % ) from {$1600.00} to {$2900.00} based on an escrow analysis completed by SLS which was immediately enforced. Even though I did not have any prior damage to my property or any claims, they placed insurance retroactively for the entire year at an egregious cost of {$5100.00} when the market cost of HO-6 policies is approximately $ 600- {$700.00}. In XX/XX/XXXX SLS then renewed the forced placed HO-6 policy at an even higher cost of {$5600.00}. This new policy is a whopping 10 % higher than the prior policy which was force placed just 2 months prior. I ended up getting my own HO-6 policy for the sole purpose of reducing my required escrow amount and monthly payment to escrow until this issue was resolved and NOT because of any Florida requirement because one does not exist. My cost of getting an HO-6 policy was {$590.00}, approximately 89 % less than what SLS charged my escrow account.
In the end, I believe the actions of SLS violate the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which requires covered persons or service providers such as SLS to refrain from committing unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. SLS force placed an HO-6 insurance policy on my loan on the premise that it was required by Florida law as SLS representatives stated in a voicemail message which I saved and can provide. The citation of that law could not be provided by SLS when requested. Therefore it is contended that no such legal requirement exists for my loan. In addition, no such requirement was in place at the time of my loan origination and, therefore, no such requirement can arbitrarily be imposed on my loan by SLS at its leisure. As such, the act of SLS of incorrectly force placing an HO-6 insurance policy on my loan was an UNFAIR act in that 1 ) it caused me direct and substantial injury since my monthly payment immediately increase by {$1200.00} ( 77 % ) per month and I had to eventually get my own HO-6 policy which I was not required to obtain 2 ) it was not avoidable by me ; even though I attempted to resolve the matter with SLS prior to the force placement, SLS did not act appropriately and continued with the erroneous force placement ; furthermore, if I did not pay the increased escrow amount, then SLS would have reported negatively and incorrectly to the credit bureaus which would have created yet another regulatory violation ( of FCRA ) on their behalf 3 ) my financial injury was in no way outweigh by any benefit of having the HO-6 policy ; in fact, the first policy was retroactive 11 months from the date it was purchased ; since I had no events or claims during those 11 months then the benefit of the policy was solely for SLS, NOT the customer ; in addition, since the HO-6 policy is not a legal requirement, then I do not believe the benefits of the policy costing approximately 89 % more than the typical market price outweigh its costs.
The acts of SLS were also DECEPTIVE in that 1 ) I the consumer ( and potentially other consumers ) was mislead by SLS as an SLS personnel made an explicit Representation to me that the HO-6 policy was required by Florida law. I have subsequently consulted 2 separate law firms and both have informed me that Florida law was amended in XXXX and as a result there is no such explicit requirement that I have an HO-6 policy on my condominium ; furthermore, since I requested SLS to provide me evidence that a Florida requirement for the insurance existed and SLS did not provide evidence of such legal requirement, then SLS may have Omitted material information ; 2 ) since my loan was originated without the requirement of an HO-6 insurance policy and without the requirement to place funds in escrow for the purpose of purchasing an HO-6 policy, then my belief that an HO-6 policy was not required is reasonable 3 ) the misleading act by SLS is material The acts of SLS were also ABUSIVE in that I that consumer placed reasonable reliance on SLS to act in my interest. However, SLS did not adequately perform its responsibilities in understanding Florida law and did not provide me with the evidence and citation of the Florida law SLS referred to in its voicemail probably because the requirement does not exist ; SLS was in a position to take advantage of me as I felt I did not have any other avenue to gain clarity on the matter and resolve it except for getting my own legal advice.
Should this formal complaint not be resolved to a mutual satisfaction, I will have no choice but to proceed with formal legal action. I hope we can all come to an agreement.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response Closed with explanation
2019-01-09
Nashville, TN
Struggling to pay mortgage
Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response Closed with explanation
2019-01-09
Brentwood, NC
False statements or representation
Debt collection: I do not know
Attempted to collect wrong amount
Complaint: On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a letter from Specialized Loan Servicing LLC ( SLS ) confirming that " lender-placed insurance '' is not being renewed due to my negligence of not securing insurance coverage on my property. Please review attachment of the letter from SLS. In response to the letter from SLS, I never authorized SLS to place insurance on my property. Since XXXX, I have been trying to secure my own coverage and when I attempted to place insurance on my property, SLS refused to remove their lender forced policy coverage. As confirmation, SLS currently have a Class Action Lawsuit pending ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, MN XXXX ) for their lender placed insurance.I confirm that I am a claimant in the Class action against SLS. Based on the attachment letter from SLS, SLS & XXXX XXXX was never my mortgagee, because I never executed documents with SLS, SLS never established a chain of title or custody from the original lender, and XXXX XXXX confirmed that they do not have any affiliation with SLS in anyway as well per XXXX ( SLS ID # XXXX Dated : XX/XX/XXXX | Time:XXXX | stated " SLS has no information referencing the original lender nor payment history. However the " loan '' came from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX '' who confirm the same ( no chain of title or payment history from its originator XXXX XXXX XXXX ).
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response Closed with explanation
2019-01-09
NY
Struggling to pay mortgage
Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage
Complaint: I hired my attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to handle my mortgage defence on or about XX/XX/XXXX when I was given a default notice, ( 3 months behind then ) since then I followed my attorneys advice, the bank Specialized Loan Servicing of XXXX XXXX. XXXX CO. are playing games, they keep on adjouning the conference because they aren't ready and my arrears keep getting larger and larger, today they SLS didn't even bother to show up and the judge adjounded the case again ( 2 months ) from now to XX/XX/XXXX because they didn't show up. My Arears keep on going up. My bank Arears are now at {$110000.00} until present, I offered the bank {$100000.00} in XX/XX/XXXX and was turned down, this bank is not looking to come to the table and assist in getting this loan Motification or settled, I have both letters from my attorney stating the refusal of my offer by my attorney, and that today XX/XX/XXXX a scheduled court conference by the court they didn't even bothered to show up. I need you to investigate this bank as they are forcing me to file a bankruptcy which I do not want to do.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response Closed with explanation
2019-01-07
Brooklyn, NY
Struggling to pay mortgage
Mortgage: FHA mortgage
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response Closed with explanation
2019-01-05
Wallington, NJ
Struggling to pay mortgage
Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage
Complaint: I am filing this complaint to address several significant areas of concern during and following the submission of my Loss Mitigation Application ( RMA ) dated XX/XX/2018, and also the Notice of Error letter, submitted XX/XX/2018.
Throughout this entire process, it is clear that SLS and its representatives are operating in a deliberate unethically discriminatory manner. While suppressing all means of communication and correction, it is also apparent that they attempt to prevent me from seeking my right to pursue available alternatives to foreclosure.
Highlighted below are some of the more egregious and erroneous actions perpetrated in the very short span of my seeking loss mitigation assistance. I have provided all documentation to support and bolster each claim in my charge against SLS.
XX/XX/2018, I submitted to SLS an RMA application seeking a short negotiated payoff ( charge-off ). On XX/XX/2018, SLS reviewed the remainder of my submitted documents, and the application status updated to complete. ( SLS did not meet regulatory guidelines by failing to provide written notices as well as requests to have this confirmation in writing ) XX/XX/2018, SLS representatives falsely stated that XXXX XXXX does not allow short negotiated payoffs, the subject property is in an equity position, and that I would have to submit another application that does not select short negotiated payoff as an option. Despite their false assertion, I knew that charge-offs, its definition, and implementation are part of XXXX XXXX Single-Family Seller/Servicer Guide chapter 9210.1.
XX/XX/2018, the outcome of the Foreclosure Settlement Conference, held at the XXXX Supreme Court, was a signed agreement that SLS would provide a full interior/exterior appraisal to compare our vastly differed values accurately. The property value of my interior/exterior appraisal is $ XXXX whereas SLS 's desktop estimate was $ XXXX. SLS and its representatives had full disclosure of the preexisting interior damage before the RMA application yet they did not communicate this information to XXXX XXXX contrary to its ' Seller/Servicer Guide chapters 8403.1 and 9202.5.
On XX/XX/2018, the BPO company, hired by SLS to perform the interior/exterior appraisal, informed me, via phone, that they will not schedule an appraisal until SLS confirms that they will either provide a safety mask ( for mold throughout the house ) or compensate them for their purchase of a mask. ( A hazard distressed BPO servicer is required as stated in XXXX XXXX Single-Family Seller/Servicer Guide chapter 9210.3 ( 2 ) ) During a self-initiated phone call to SLS on XX/XX/2018, I discovered that SLS stopped processing my RMA application, no agent was assigned, no valid, verifiable explanation available as to why. Since XX/XX/2018, there were no requests for me to supply any additional information, no denial notices, written notice of loss mitigation options available, or the right to appeal any adverse decision made. ( Violation of RESPA 12 CFR 1024.41, b, c, d, e, h ) On XX/XX/2018, SLS representatives attempted to initiate dialogue with me to present what they called an " alternative settlement proposal. '' Within their letters, they would make the following claims : 1. XXXX XXXX doesn't accept short negotiated payoffs but has secured a one-time approval 2. The settlement is based on the lien amount only 3. Their exterior-only appraisal is $ XXXX ( $ 100K less than previously asserted yet in clear opposition to the Court instruction and agreement to conduct an interior appraisal ) 4. They have approval from XXXX XXXX to sell the property for $ XXXX 5. XXXX XXXX XXXX stance is that their contractors can do the needed repair work at the subject property ( sight-unseen ) for $ 75K less than the itemized contractor estimate supplied in my RMA application which also would include expenses not provided in my report. With each correspondence, under threat to proceed to litigation, the time to accept or respond to their offer was 15, 10 and 5 days.
On XX/XX/2018, SLS attempted to validate their reason for not performing an interior appraisal as due to the presence of extensive mold. However, this was not new information. The Court understood this fact beforehand and therefore instructed SLS also to provide a full-appraisal similar to the one I had supplied with the RMA application to which SLS agreed and signed off. Though SLS and their hired BPO Company both knew of the extensive damage and presence of mold, they have attempted to provide their land-only BPO as reliable and accurate. Within the report, they entirely omitted any mention of the preexisting hazards. Though the subject property is a single family house, their BPO reclassified the property as vacant land and used a wide range of nonqualified varied comparables that include commercial property, multi-lot, unlicensed parking lot and non-existing property. Most notable is that report lists the overall property condition as " good. '' SLS 's actions and inactions have obstructed my physical possession of the property as it was originally willed, impeded means of foreclosure redemption and has left the property uninhabitable and its contents nonredeemable due to contamination from toxic high levels of black mold.
To date, multiple requests have gone unanswered for any valid reason for my stopped RMA application. No explanation provided as to why I have been subjected to deceptive, misleading statements and practices. I've not received the non-proprietary documentation of XXXX XXXX approval to sell for $ XXXX or their contractors work estimate for $ XXXX. No explanation is given as to if SLS still intends on using their BPO as an acceptable accurate document. No answer to my notice of error letter submitted on XX/XX/2018 XX/XX/2018
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response Closed with explanation
2019-01-04
Roxbury, NY
Incorrect information on your report
Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response Closed with explanation
2019-01-03
Darien, IL
Incorrect information on your report
Payday loan, title loan, or personal loan: Personal line of credit
Account information incorrect
Company Response: Closed with explanation
2019-01-03
Oro Valley, AZ
Trouble during payment process
Mortgage: Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response Closed with explanation
2019-01-03
Las Vegas, NV
Trouble during payment process
Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage
Complaint: On XX/XX/XXXX I received notification that XXXX XXXX was transferring my loan to Specialized Loan Servicing on XX/XX/XXXX. I requested a payoff from my second mortgage XXXX XXXX whom required a wire transfer to pay off my second loan. On XX/XX/XXXX through XXXX XXXX I wire transferred {$450.00} to XXXX XXXX 's account number. The XXXX XXXX clerk listed XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as the beneficiary. The tracking number was XXXX. The wire transferred was delivered. XXXX XXXX inadvertently accepted the wire transfer from XXXX XXXX and applied the payment to my mortgage. It is unknown how the payment was applied as neither XXXX XXXX or SLS have provided a payment history. On XX/XX/XXXX my loan was transferred to SLS. The {$450.00}, according to XXXX XXXX was transferred to SLS. SLS has claimed that they had the funds but were not applied to my XX/XX/XXXX payment. According to SLS an investigation regarding the wire transfer was opened. On XX/XX/XXXX, in a phone conversation, I paid the remaining {$780.00} to make my loan current for the month of XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX I sent a certified letter to SLS regarding the wire transfer and discrepancy in how it was applied to my loan. The letter was to arrive on XX/XX/XXXX. The same day I mailed a check for my XX/XX/XXXX payment in full to a separate XXXX XXXX for SLS ( certified receipt XXXX, confirmed delivery ). The payment was received and SLS rather than depositing my check withdrew the money from my account as an ACH payment. The money was withdrawn on XX/XX/XXXX from my XXXX XXXX XXXX account ( check number XXXX ) I did not and have not authorized any ACH payments with SLS. I received an email confirmation that the payment was received. On XX/XX/XXXX I contacted SLS again to resolve the status of my loan and address my letter. SLS then told me that my {$450.00} was applied to my XXXX payment ( as an autopost ), but now my {$780.00} payment had been applied to my principal as it was a partial payment ( as a curtailment ). I informed XXXX that the representative never informed me that my payment would be applied to my principal but that we had an in-depth conversation regarding that this payment would make my monthly payment current. I was never requested on informed XXXX XXXX or SLS that I wanted to make an additional payment toward my loan at any point in time. According to my financial records, my XXXX payment should be current and my XXXX payment was paid by check. According to SLS 's online history of my account the XXXX payment in the amount of {$1200.00} has NOT been credited or received by SLS. All payments have been made to both XXXX XXXX and SLS and my account is current. It is my belief that SLS is attempting to foreclose on my home and committing fraudulent acts with criminal intent.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response Closed with explanation
2019-01-03
Indianapolis, IN
Trouble during payment process
Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage
Complaint: XXXX made an error ( posted some payment we did not make and then reversed it PLUS {$400.00} that left our account short due to no fault of our own ) on our account that pushed us into default ; though, we've never missed a payment and did not know of this since XXXX never sent statements. They sent us to Specialized Loan Service, which is a collection agency, and they are now threatening to foreclose if we don't pay {$1700.00}. We didn't make the error ; still have not missed a payment and don't believe we should pay for XXXX 's error that messed up our account in the first place.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response Closed with explanation
2019-01-02
Ft Charlotte, FL
Struggling to pay mortgage
Mortgage: Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)
Company Response: Closed with explanation
2018-12-31
Brooklyn, NY
Trouble during payment process
Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response Closed with explanation
2018-12-31
NC
Struggling to pay mortgage
Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage
Complaint: loan # XXXX I have been researching how MERS Assigns its mortgages and MERS has told me that they do not keep the Promissory Note but only assigns the mortgage.
SLS has told me that the, Trustee, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is holding it but they are not the holders.
I have asked SLS how did they come to have the promissory note when MERS assigned them the mortgage and did not assign them the Note.
My question I keep asking is, how did SLS get possession of the original the promissory note?
Company Response: Closed with explanation
2018-12-30
MA
Struggling to pay mortgage
Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage
Complaint: They violated the law when I asked to view my note. They told me to come to XXXX XXXX XXXX Utah when they are required to allow me local Viewing. Also XXXX agreed to postpone the auction although it went forward. Illegal foreclosure
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response Closed with explanation
2018-12-30
Havana, FL
Trouble during payment process
Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage
Complaint: During the Dismissal of our Bankruptcy, our Mortgage was with XXXX. They moved our loan to Sertiviced Loan Servicing. This is when our trouble started. The company fails, over and over to answer our questions. If they write us, is just with a letter that is not applicable to our concerns. Our mortgage payments have been made on time. They have made arrangements that we are paying for without our approval. The amount owed, seems to go up instead of down. They claimed our escrow account was behind over {$3000.00}. Our escrow comes from the monthly payments. We have a 4.5 % account. We pay {$1100.00} and then when we had the problems with the escrow, they reduced the payments to {$1000.00} Does that make sense? On XX/XX/2018 the outstanding principal was {$180000.00} Now the amount owed to be able to refinance with a better, reputable company is {$200000.00} plus. No explanation given. Why a company that seems to do everything illegal to scam the consumers has not been fined, made to do something with the outstanding accounts, etc. They get away with anything, but nobody stands to help us consumers who are seniors, living on retirement as well as our young generation that keeps fighting with no solution, just like we are talking to the Wall.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response Closed with explanation
2018-12-29
Norwalk, CA
Struggling to pay mortgage
Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response Closed with explanation
2018-12-28
Wash, NC
Struggling to pay mortgage
Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response Closed with explanation
2018-12-27
San Gabriel, CA
Struggling to pay mortgage
Mortgage: Conventional home mortgage
Complaint: 1a. on XX/XX/XXXX XXXX filed a fraudulent Assignment of Deed of Trust falsely claiming to be nominee for the defunct XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX. XXXX violated RTC 23302 Transferring Property in California under a corporate suspended license. XXXX license to do business in California was suspended by the Secretary of State of California XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX license to do business in California was also suspended by The Franchise Tax Board XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX XXXX did not own any loans in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. also filed a Corrective Assignment of deed of trust in XXXX operating under a Suspended Corporation violating State and Federal Laws.
2 Specialize Loan Servicing is responsible for the illegal transferring of loans XXXX XXXX XXXX who is employed by Specialize Loan Servicing forged the Corrective Assignment falsely claims to be Assistant Secretary for the California Suspended Corporation XXXX, and representing the defunct XXXX XXXX XXXX who denies owning ANY LOANS as of XXXX See XXXX XXXX XXXX Liquidating Trust Letter Page 3.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response Closed with explanation
2018-12-27
Darien, IL
Incorrect information on your report
Mortgage: Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response Closed with explanation