Product: Mortgage

I am writing to formally request that your office initiate a thorough investigation into the practices of Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. ( SPS ), operating as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and their legal representatives, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX We allege that they are engaging in fraudulent foreclosure practices designed to unlawfully acquire the property located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, NY which is currently the subject of a partition lawsuit filed in XXXX. 

Despite the property being the subject of an ongoing partition lawsuit awaiting the appointment of a refereea process that offers SPS sufficient protection for the approximate {$6000.00} principal balance owedSPS, through their attorneys, appears to be circumventing proper legal processes. This raises serious concerns of potential foreclosure fraud, abuse of process, and other deceptive practices. The property has an estimated market value in the region of {>= $1,000,000}. 

Our concerns are rooted in the Summons and Notice filing, particularly on Page XXXX of XXXX, which states : NOTICE OF NATURE OF ACCOUNT AND RELIEF SOUGHT : THE OBJECT of the above-captioned action is to foreclose a Mortgage to secure {$140000.00} and interest, recorded in the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, in XXXX XXXX covering premises known as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, NY XXXX XXXX The relief sought in the within action is a final judgment directing the sale of the premises described above to satisfy the debt secured by the Mortgage described above. 
This filing is deeply concerning for several reasons : 1. Disproportionate Financial Claims : The foreclosure action seeks to recover {$140000.00}, which is over 2,168 % greater than the actual remaining principal balance of {$6000.00}. This gross discrepancy suggests a lack of due diligence and raises questions about the accuracy and integrity of the claims presented to the court.

2. Cost Inefficiency and Redundancy : It is highly unusual and economically irrational for a financial institution to pursue foreclosure over such a minor balance, particularly when foreclosure costs are likely to exceed the amount owed. Additionally, as a lienholder in the partition lawsuit, SPSs interests are already adequately protected, rendering the foreclosure action redundant and seemingly punitive.

3. Failure to Serve Notice : Not all co-owners of the property have been properly served with the requisite Pre-Foreclosure Notice ( PFN ) or the Summons and Complaint. In some cases, no service has occurred. If XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX asserts otherwise, such claims would constitute fraud and deceptive conduct. 
4. Lack of ResolutioXXXX Options : Attempts to resolve the matter by inquiring about paying off the {$6000.00} balance have been met with silence or inadequate responses, further demonstrating a lack of good faith on the part of SPS and its representatives. 
XXXX. Circumvention of Legal Process : SPS and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX appear to be improperly subsuming the partition lawsuit by moving forward with foreclosure proceedings. This action undermines the courts authority and disrupts the partition process currently awaiting the appointment of a referee. 

Given these factors, we believe the actions of SPS and its legal representatives not only lack justification but also pose a significant threat to the integrity of the judicial process and consumer protections. 

We respectfully urge your office to : -Investigate the practices of SPS and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX this matter. 
-Demand that SPS cease and desist any foreclosure actions while the partition lawsuit remains active.

-Ensure that SPS provides a clear and lawful rationale for their actions.