Consumer complaint received 2019-12-18
Company: GMFS, LLC
State: TX
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: FHA mortgage
Issue: Incorrect information on your report
Sub-issue: Information belongs to someone else

Complaint:
Based on the credit reports for XXXX XXXX XXXX from XX/XX/XXXX, the mortgage company GMFS has reported our FHA loan as two different entries creating the appearance of two past due mortgages and double negative impact on our credit scores and worthiness. 

Furthermore, monthly status reports made for each align with other questionable and possibly fraudulent events concerning non-compliance with HUD policies that we have taken several steps to address with this company including a complaint to the CFPB on XX/XX/XXXX and my latest report of disaster fraud to the National Center for Disaster Fraud on XX/XX/XXXX. 

All three of our credit reports show two mortgage accounts opening in XX/XX/XXXX, with one for GMFS , LLC ( Acct. no. XXXX ) and the other with some combination of XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) and GMFS ( Acct. no. XXXX ) including " XXXX/GMFS '' ( XXXX  ), " XXXX/GMFS, LLC '' ( XXXX ), or " GMFS SVCD BY XXXX XXXX XXXX  '' ( XXXX  ). However, the payment history status on all three reports for Acct. XXXX covers XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX while Acct. XXXX only covers XX/XX/XXXX to the PFS pay-off in XX/XX/XXXX. 

All three reports also indicate Acct. XXXX was closed, transferred, or sold in XX/XX/XXXX. However, we were told XXXX just has a new sub-servicing company, XXXX, to replace its previous company, XXXX. As we do not believe a change in sub-servicing companies by a mortgage company requires reporting a new credit account to reporting agencies, we are concerned that such an error was yet another move in the attempt to cover up the non-compliance matters involved in improperly keeping funds to which the mortgage company is not legally entitled. 

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. We also do not understand how XXXX begins servicing with 3 months of no data reported and then 180 days past due through the PFS in XX/XX/XXXX. 

As we have now learned how the servicing of FHA loans should have occurred, we also see how not reporting data and misrepresenting a change in sub-servicer on our credit report would allow the mortgage company more time to exploit our situation and muddle the HUD review process for compliance.

Company public response: Company disputes the facts presented in the complaint
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation