Consumer complaint received 2017-06-28
Company: Servis One, Inc., Titusville, PA Branch
State: CA
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: FHA mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage

Complaint:
On XXXX XXXX XXXX. I went to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX website to view foreclosure sale information about my home. Once I arrived at the site, It stated that my property was to be sold the following day, XXXX XXXX XXXX. After reviewing the information, I called my loan servicer, XXXX XXXX and asked to speak to my account manager, XXXX XXXX. I was told that XXXX wasnt available and was asked if I needed help by the person who answered my call. That person was XXXX XXXX.
<P/>
XXXX XXXX told me that she was an account specialist and worked in the Loss Mitigation Dept. with XXXX XXXX. I told her that I had visited the XXXX XXXX website and that it said my property was up for sale the following day. I asked her if the website was correct and was my home going to be put up for auction on the XX/XX/XXXX? She said no. According to her records, XXXX  had received my request for a Modification and that they had received a complete package. She also said she, nor XXXX needed any further documents from me. She told me that because I was under review for a modification, that the sale had been place on hold, and my property will not be put up for auction the following day. XXXX also said that according to California state law, no property can be sold while under review for a modification, that my Loss Mitigation Package was currently being reviewed by the underwriter, and according to California state law, even if my request for an appeal is denied, XXXX has to send me a denial letter and give me 30 days to appeal their decision. If XXXX  denies my appeal, they have to send me an appeal denial letter before my property can be placed back up for auction.
<P/>
I asked XXXX several more times throughout our 9 minute and 54 sec. long conversation, XXXX, are you 100 % sure that my property will not go to auction tomorrow, XX/XX/XXXX? She assured me that their was no chance of my property being put up for auction because in her system their was no sale date attached to my property and that the sale had been placed on hold. She told me the only reason XXXX XXXX had a sale date of XX/XX/XXXX showing on their website was because their system was slow and she had access to the most up to date information regarding my property.
<P/>
I even asked XXXX  directly, If XXXX denies my request for a modification today XX/XX/XXXX, are you saying you still cant sell my home tomorrow because you have to give me time to appeal and resubmit documents? XXXX said yes, that is correct. Her exact words were We cant place your property back on the market while you are in the appeals process. We have to give you 30 days to appeal, we have to review your appeal, and we have to send you an answer back before we can place your property back on the market because you are in the state of California. And just because I wanted to make very sure that I was understanding her correctly, I asked once more before our conversation ended, XXXX, are you sure my property will not go to auction tomorrow? Her answers was, No your property will not go to auction tomorrow because its under review and it has been placed on hold. She said maybe it would go to auction if there werent a hold placed on the account, but there is, so you have nothing to worry about. I asked if I could get a printed document that says the sale has been placed on hold? She said, no, but dont worry, your home will not be put up for auction tomorrow.
<P/>
At about XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX., the day after I spoke with XXXX  XXXX , I checked the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX website to see if there had been any changes in regards to my account being placed on hold. To my surprise, upon reviewing the site, I noticed that it had been updated to now include an opening bid amount for my home and the time in which the sale would start ( XXXX pst. ) I immediately called XXXX and requested to speak with my account manager, XXXX XXXX. I was told she was in a meeting. I then requested to speak with her supervisor, I was told he was in a meeting as well. I told the person who answered my call ( I didnt get her name ) about the previous conversation I had with XXXX the day before. I told her that the website had gone from saying Scheduled sale date XX/XX/XXXX to listing an opening bid amount and a time in which the sale would take place. She said The hold on your property has been removed and the request for modification was closed out today. I asked if my property would in fact be put up for auction? She said she couldnt give me that information because she was in a different department and didnt have access to those notes. I asked to speak with her supervisor and she told me that he wouldnt be able to help me either. I asked to speak with her supervisor again and she placed me on hold. After being on hold for a very long time, I was transferred to someone named XXXX XXXX. He said he was a Manager in the corporate office in XXXX Texas.
<P/>
I explained to XXXX, my conversation with XXXX and that the woman who transferred me to him said the hold was removed and I was no longer under consideration for a modification. I told him I needed to know if my property will be put up for auctionXX/XX/XXXXtoday at XXXX ( less than 3hr. from now. ) His exact words were XXXX XXXX, let me just confirm with you that XXXX is a servicer. We service loans for private investors. Your particular investor happens to be XXXX XXXX whos the owner of the note. In the state of California, there is a law named the SB-900 law that states that a bank, servicer, or investor can deny the review of a loan modification package if its sent when there is a scheduled sale date ( which is not true ). XXXX XXXX also said We have received your request for a modification and the investor had declined to review it and we are proceeding with sale today at XXXX.
<P/>
I asked XXXX if XXXX had lied when she told me I had 30 days to appeal a denial. Was she lying when she said that there was no way for my home to go to auction on the XX/XX/XXXX? At that point, XXXX cut me off, mid sentence, and began to get very aggressive and rude. He told me that I needed to, Stop talking now if I want my questions answered! He also said XXXX XXXX, youve had your chance to speak, now its my turn. When Im done, you can ask any questions you want! He then said, No, XXXX was not lying. The hold was removed today, you spoke with XXXX yesterday. She would have seen a hold on the account yesterday because the hold was not removed until sometime this morning. I then said, XXXX told me I had 30 days after a denial to appeal. XXXX said, No, thats based on the packet we were going to review you for however, it was brought to our attention today that we have received notification from the investor this morning to remove the hold, we are gon na proceed with sale. I asked him if the sale would be taking place at 1pm my time or his time. He said my time. I asked for his full name and location, thanked him for his time, and we hung up. I was forced to file a bankruptcy to protect my home. The sale was postponed to XX/XX/XXXX. I was not given a full 30 days to appeal their decision, In fact, today is XX/XX/XXXXand neither myself, nor my attorney have yet to received a denial letter from XXXX. It is my belief that XXXX purposely gave me wrong information in an attempt to fraudulently and underhandedly foreclose on my property.
<P/><P/>
As a result of my conversations with both XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, I have questions : 1.Why would XXXX XXXX tell me that my Loss Mitigation packet was under review with the underwriter if it wasnt?
<P/>
2.Why would XXXX tell me that XXXX has to give me 30 days to appeal, they have to review my appeal, and they have to send me an answer back before they can place my property back on the market because I am in the state of California, if that was not true?
<P/>
3.Why would XXXX XXXX lie about SB-900?
<P/>
4.Why have I still not received a denial letter from XXXX?
<P/>
5.Why did XXXX XXXX lie about the investor declining to review my Loss Mitigation package?
<P/>
I was sent a letter from XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX that stated, my Loss Mitigation package was received and is being reviewed by XXXX. A decision will be determined within 30 days from that date. ( Ive attached that letter ) I called numerous times to get an update, but my calls were never returned. However, if I had been under review sinceXX/XX/XXXX and it takes 30 days to make a decision, how is it possible that the investor decided on XX/XX/XXXX that they would deny reviewing my Loss Mitigation packet? There are too many inconsistencies with XXXX business practices.
<P/>
I assure you that my statements in this complaint are truthful and factual, however if anyone questions the accuracy of my statements, I would be more than happy to send the videotaped recordings of both conversations. I couldnt attached the videos to this complaint because the files were too big and there was no way for me to cut them into small enough pieces to attach them.
<P/>Thank you.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation