Product: Mortgage

Timeline of Events of Complaint. 

XX/XX/2021 : XXXXs filed a XXXX XXXX XXXX due to XXXX change of employment and loss income. The lender XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) put the Borrowers on the XXXX Forbearance Plan without their knowledge from approximately XX/XX/2021 to XX/XX/2021. At the time, the XXXX was, and still is on, XXXX XXXX XXXX with very limited income per month in the form of XXXX. 

XX/XX/2021 to XX/XX/2021 : The Borrowers continued paying their normal mortgage payments of approximately {$450.00} a month. 

XX/XX/2021 : The Co-Borrower filed for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) online with a pending XXXX claim that may take up to at least XXXX months to get approved for XXXX, and it maybe longer. 

XX/XX/2021 : The XXXX resigned as a XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), ending a XXXX  year, XXXX month career in XXXX due to long-term, chronic disabling health conditions that forced her to either get fired or resign as a full-time XXXX XXXX, reducing a monthly combined net income of approximately {$4200.00} to {$2000.00}, starting in XX/XX/2021. 

XX/XX/2021 : A XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX was filed and emailed by the Borrowers with some supporting documentation to XXXX that explained the updated hardship, and to ask for additional loss mitigation options. 

XX/XX/2021 : XXXX generated a denied letter in reference of the XXXX Forbearance Plan that stated it had ended and expired, but other options of loss mitigation can be an option like repayment plan, loan modification or deed in lieu of foreclosure. 

XX/XX/2021 : The XX/XX/2021 denied letter arrived by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, making the Borrowers question why they were on the XXXX Forbearance Plan in the first place due to a XXXX pandemic hardship. They looked at the prior monthly mortgage statements, all the way back to XX/XX/2021, and noticed that XXXX placed the Borrowers on the forbearance plan up to XX/XX/2021 when the statements stated that the Borrowers were on that loss mitigation option due to XXXX. However, the Borrowers never knew they were on that option and continued to pay their normal $ 455 monthly mortgage payment. The XX/XX/2021 mortgage statement stated that they were current on a loss mitigation plan of repayment plan of the unknown XXXX Forbearance Plan, starting in XX/XX/2021, and ended in XX/XX/2021. In the denied letter package, it stated that if the Borrowers did not agree with the Rushmores loss mitigation decision, the Borrowers could file a formal complaint to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXX ). Therefore, the Borrowers did file a complaint on the same day, which included some supporting documents to the XXXX. 

XX/XX/2021 : An email that was from the XXXX was sent to the Borrowers. The email stated that they received the official complaint against XXXX, which was filed on XX/XX/2021. The XXXX stated they had forward the complaint details with the supporting documentation to the lender XXXX. XXXX received the complaint on the same day, and they generated a XX/XX/2021 letter addressed to the Borrowers. The letter stated that XXXX received the Borrowers complaint from the XXXX that was dated on XX/XX/2021, but now the mortgage was owned by a different lender known as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), and the Borrowers needed to contact that lender. 

XX/XX/2021 : A XXXX letter document that was from XXXX came to the Borrowers home that had the XX/XX/2021 dated letter about how they ( XXXX ) sold the loan to a different lender. 

XX/XX/2021 : The Borrowers filed a XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) complaint application, based on the Borrowers interpretation of the Fair Housing Acts description of discrimination and retaliation that XXXX allegedly committed against the Borrowers. The Borrowers complaint details are based on allegations of discrimination and retaliation against a XXXX XXXX, and the misclassification, misleading and falsifying and questioning why XXXX placed the Borrowers on the XXXX Foreclosure Plan. It is alleged that when the Borrowers filed a formal complaint against XXXX to the XXXX on XX/XX/2021, it triggered the events of the alleged discrimination and retaliation tactics by not working with the XXXX Borrowers on continued loss mitigation options. XXXX ended up selling the mortgage to XXXX XXXX Mortgage XXXX ( XXXX ) on, or after, XX/XX/2021, which is based on when XXXX received the official complaint from the XXXX against them on XX/XX/2021. XXXX turned around and generated their XX/XX/2021 letter that stated that the Borrowers mortgage is now owned by XXXX, and the Borrowers need to contact that lender. This letter from XXXX was received by the Borrowers through XXXX on XX/XX/2021. From XX/XX/2021 to XX/XX/2021, XXXX allegedly still owned and had the Borrowers mortgage. However, when the Borrowers were trying to work with XXXX to extend any loss mitigation options, and filed a complaint against them to the XXXX, XXXX allegedly discriminated and retaliated against the Borrowers by selling the mortgage and not willing to work with the XXXX in additional loss mitigation options. These above allegations against XXXX by the Borrowers are allegedly based on the Borrower interpretation of the Fair Housing Act of discrimination and retaliation against a XXXX XXXX in the ability to help assist in additional loss mitigation options, if needed. 

XXXX 2021 : Due to this hardship and allegations against XXXX practices and tactics, the Borrowers place their home for sale by owner in XXXX 2021 to prevent foreclosure so they can save the equity in the home and move up to XXXX XXXX. With the equity, they will plan to buy a single-wide mobile home and place it on land of the Co-Borrowers parents plot of land that has a XXXX mobile XXXX setup. If the Borrowers foreclosure, they will loss the equity due to XXXX alleged actions and tactics, and it would take XXXX years to get another loan due to a foreclosure on record. The Borrowers net income is approximately {$2000.00} per month, starting in XX/XX/2021, making this hardship extreme in nature. The Borrowers gave fair warning to XXXX to help and assist in addition loss mitigation options, but they have allegedly discriminated and retaliated against the Borrowers, after the Borrowers filed a complaint to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Banks. These tactics are allegedly a violation of the XXXX XXXX XXXX of not assisting a XXXX Borrower, based on the Borrowers interpretation. Due to the alleged actions and tactics of XXXX, the Borrowers also filed a XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) complaint application against XXXX, and the claim is under review, as of XX/XX/2021. 

XX/XX/2021 : The Borrower receives a voicemail from a phone number at XXXX, which was coming from XXXX, XXXX. The voicemail transcript reads, in part, XXXX, XXXX XXXX calling from XXXX XXXX on behalf of XXXX, your service provider. I see youre listed for sale XXXX XXXX continued to ask if the Borrowers were pre-qualified and pre-approved on buying another property. This single voicemail questioned the Borrowers deeper. Did XXXX really sell the Borrowers Mortgage to a different lender called XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, based on the XX/XX/2021 letter from XXXX that was addressed to the Borrowers? It is with speculation that XXXX may be forcing a foreclosure and auctioned off the home at some point by getting a profit due to the approximately {$52000.00} balance on the loan, but there is an equity in the home of $ XXXX {$130000.00}. The value of the home, based on XXXX is somewhere between {$150000.00} to {$190000.00}, as of XX/XX/2021.