Consumer complaint received 2023-08-15
Company: SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.
State: AZ
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Closing on a mortgage

Complaint:
XXXX XXXX XXXX  COMPLAINT AGAINST XXXX XXXX XXXX AND SELECT PORTFOLIO
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX UTAH XXXX XXXXXXXX  LOAN # XXXX XXXX XXXX

I XXXX XXXX HAVE BEEN IN LITIGATION OF MY HOME IN  XXXXXXXX XXXX  SINCE XXXX.  I AM A PAID VICTIM OF THE FINANCIAL FRAUD YOU BROUGHT AGAINST THE BANKS TO HELP THE HOMEOWNERS OF THESE LOANS. THIS LOAN STARTS WITH  XXXX XXXX  THEN XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX AND NOW FINALLY RESTING WITH SELECT PORTFOLIO. 
WHEN THESE LOANS GET BUNDLED AND SOLD THEY  CRAWL UP FROM ONE SERVICER TO ANOTHER  SO ANY FORWARD LITIGATION YOU ACHIEVE GETS  IMMEDIATELY SHUFFLED TO THE NEXT, FORCING BORROWERS TO SPEND TIME AND MONEY TO LITIGATE.   
I AM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY AND INFOCEABILITY OF THIS NOTE AS THIS IS NOT WHAT I APPLIED FOR AND LENDER CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS WERE NOT FOLLOWED. 
EXHIBIT 1 COPY OF FINAL HUD SHOWING LENDERS CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS.
 EXHIBIT 2 A&B COPY OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION SHOWING APPLICATION FOR 30 YEAR INTEREST ONLY MORTGAGE. 
EXHIBIT 3 A&B   NOTE AND 5 YEAR ADDENDUM * BROKER ADVISED PRIOR TO CLOSING ADDENDUM ADDED TO THE  NOTE WOULD REDUCE MY INTEREST RATE.  HOWEVER WOULD REMAIN AN INTEREST ONLY  MORTGAGE. 
EXHIBIT 4. TRUTH IN LENDING AT CLOSING SHOWING PAYMENT BREAKDOWN AS REGULATED.
EXHIBIT 5 XXXX XXXX XXXX  STARTED SERVICING THIS LOAN IN XXXX COPY OF MY XXXX  MORTGAGE  STATEMENT SHOWS THAT IN XXXX  PAST THE  5 YR  NOTE ADDENDUM SHOW NO ACCELERATED P&I FOR 25 YEARS. BOTTOM OF STATEMENT SHOWS A 30 INTEREST ONLY UNDER LOAN TYPE. WRONG NOTE WRONG LOAN.
EXHIBIT 6 XXXX XXXX CALCULATOR SHOWING THAT THIS NOTE IS NOT MY LOAN.  NOTE FRONT FACE IS A 30 YEAR PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST PRODUCT. THIS IS NOT WHAT I APPLIED FOR. THIS IS NOT MY NOTE IT IS NOT MY LOAN.
WHEN I DISCOVERED THE PROBLEM WITH THE NOTE  I SPOKE WITH THE OMBUDSMAN FOR SELECT PORTFOLIO AT THE SAME TIME THAT THEY DENIED MY CHANCE TO MIDIGATE DAMAGES ON ALL SIDES WITH A PRINCIAL REDUCTION AS PART OF MY SETTLEMENT.  I HAD ASKED AT THAT TIME  TO LET THE ATTORNEY KNOW ABOUT THE NOTE AND THAT I INTENDED TO CHALLENGE IT. IMMEDIATELY AFTER THAT SELECT PORTFOLIO FILED A LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT WHICH THEY HAD RECENTLY  BROUGHT TO ANOTHER HEARING.
EXHIBIT 7 RCW 19.144.080 UNLAWFUL ACTION STATES ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS WHEN IT COMES TO THE BORROWER
CONCLUSION:
WHERE IT  STANDS NOW. THIS WAS A JUDICIAL FORCLOSURE IN WHICH I HAVE A ONE YEAR STATUTORY RIGHT TO READEAM.  THE FOLLOWING IS A CHAIN OF EVENTS THAT LEADS TO NOW.
MY ATTORNEY AT THE TIME FILED AN APPEAL THAT INC THE FORECLOSURE AND THE  STATUE OF LIMITATIONS. THE APPEALS  COURT RULED ONE IN MY FAVOR 2 NOT. WE THEN APPEALED THE CASE TO THE SUPREME COURT WAITING FOR THEM TO DECIDE TO HEAR. THAT HEARING WAS SET FOR XXXX XXXX. SHERRIFF,S  SALE WAS SCHEDULED  FOR XXXX XXXX  SELECT  INSTEAD OF WAITING FOR HEARING FROM THE SUPREME COURT  SELECT PUSHED THRU THE SALE  WITH AN ACTIVE INJUNCTION,  BID THE HOUSE BACK TO THEMSELVES. SALE WENT FORWARD REDEMPTION PERIOD STARTED TO TRACK.  BACK TO COURT ON SALE AND INJUNCTION.   JUDGE DID NOT KNOW HOW TO HANDLE AND  LEFT IT ALL UP IN THE AIR NOT KNOWING HOW TO RULE.  ANOTHER HEARING WAS PROMISED, NO RESPONSE UNTIL SUPREME COURT DECIDED NOT TO HEAR THE CASE. BACK TO COURT FOR RULING ON INJUNTIVE  SALE AND RIGHT TO REDEAM.  JUDGE RULED IN SELECTS FAVOR MAKING REDEMPTION RETROACTIVE TO XXXX. 
 MY  REDEMPTION IS UP ON XXXX XXXX XXXX.  I HAVE FOUGHT THIS INJUSTICE FOR YEARS AND NOW THEY WANT TO PROCEED AND CLAIM  MY PROPERTY BASED ON A NOTE THAT IS NOT MINE,  A MORTGAGE THAT IS NOT MINE.  
EXHIBIT 8 THIS NOTE SHOULD BE VOIDED OR DISSOLVED. I PROVED TO YOU IN XXXX THAT I WAS A HARMED BORROWER. I RECEIVED XXXX XXXX WHICH WAS LESS THAN WE WERE PROMISED.  I AM ASKING FOR YOUR HELP IN THIS MATTER AGAIN AS TIME IS RUNNING SHORT. THIS CASE AT PRESENT IS NOT IN LITIGATION.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation