Product: Mortgage

In two previous complaints to the CFPB on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, GMFS has avoided directly addressing specific matters of FHA/HUD handbook policies and credit reporting practices related to our concern for disaster fraud involved in the Pre-Forclosure Sale of our house on XX/XX/XXXX, and as reported to the National Center for Disaster Fraud on XX/XX/XXXX. 

As we explained to the NCDF concerning FHA policies : " GMFS has claimed a right according to its typical policies for conventional loans to apply the funds towards an unsatisfied balance not covered by the proceeds of the PFS ; however, that is not compliant with FHA policies for an FHA insured loan. Although our home was purchased in XX/XX/XXXX through an FHA program, GMFS initially refused to acknowledge that FHA policies supersede any other policies that are otherwise legal and valid according to state or federal laws, and specifically more stringent than typical laws for conventional loans in order to protect the publics interests in government subsidized and/or administered programs. They have since only acknowledged the FHA policy that states the mortgage company must deduct the cost of Sur-chargeable damage from a PFS mortgage insurance claim to mitigate their losses. However, this policy does not state the mortgagee has a right to directly seize money from a borrower that other FHA policies state are rightfully owed to the borrower. This is vigilante justice by the mortgage company if they circumvent due process and litigation against us to demonstrate a civil liability or criminal conduct entitling them to recoup damages from us in this situation, especially given the burden imposed by the FHA policies as well as the inconvenient facts of their role in intentionally or unintentionally contributing to their own financial losses in this matter that they seek to attribute to the borrower. '' Futhermore, GMFS has most recently avoided addressing their credit reporting practices in our complaint of credit reporting errors concerning the use of forbearances after a flood disaster in XX/XX/XXXX and after our initial application for homeowners assistance according to FHA loss mitigation policies in XX/XX/XXXX. As noted in our CFPB complaint : " In following the payment history as reported by GMFS and its sub-servicers, many items after XX/XX/XXXX do not align with the facts that : ( 1 ) we had a loss of income financial hardship beginning XX/XX/XXXX causing the first 30 day Past Due in XX/XX/XXXX ; ( 2 ) then had the flood disaster on XX/XX/XXXX after which we agreed to two different three-month disaster forbearances from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX ; and ( 3 ) ultimately made our initial application for a homeowner assistance program to avoid foreclosure on XX/XX/XXXX. Given much of the confusion that was created for this application process by GMFS, XXXX, and XXXX, it is concerning to see that they reported no data for 10 months and 180 days Past Due for 5 months for the time between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX during which we were told the application for the loss mitigation process had to be delayed or restarted. '' Given that history as reported to credit bureaus, a change in servicing company in XX/XX/XXXX is even more concerning for disaster fraud cover up and delay tactics, even if the change in servicing companies was properly done according to applicable laws and credit reporting practices such as a federal requirement to pause reporting 60 days.