Consumer complaint received 2018-05-25
Company: RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC
State: MO
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage

Complaint:
The property was originally purchased in XX/XX/XXXX and the loan modified in XX/XX/XXXX following a failed attempt to market and sell the property. The property was then rented until XX/XX/XXXX.  A market analysis was conducted in XX/XX/XXXX by a realtor to determine value of the property and degree of market recovery in the area. It was determined that home values had not returned to XX/XX/XXXX levels and that the maket would bear a price of only {$55000.00}, compared to the mortgage balance of nearly {$85000.00}. The analysis of the property also revealed that investment would be necessary to re-list the home for rent and that no amount of investment would yield a home value that would meet or exceed the mortgage balance. The investment needed was not a financial fesibility. Carrying the mortgage without rental income was also an impossibility. Given this, we communicated with Rushmore Loan Management, the mortgage servicer, to determine options and were advised that a short sale was an option that seemed logical given the value of the home compared to the mortgage balance. We were not advised at that time that Rushmore did not have authority to give final approval of a short sale. Based on the information provided by Rushmore, we proceeded with the short sale process. As part of that process, various documentation was provided to Rushmore, pricing was approved by Rushmore, an appraisal was ordered by Rushmore ( showing a value of {$49000.00} - 51,000 ), a price reduction was advised and approved by Rushmore. At no point was I or my realtor advised that Rushmore could not provide final approval of the sale contract. An offer was received and approved by Rushmore. Based on this, another appraisal was conducted by the buyer that showed a value of {$55000.00}, slightly higher but still significantly less than the mortgage balance. Rushmore approved the offer. At this point, following approval of the purchase offer, Rushmore advised that the offer and short sale must received final approval from the " investor '' and that decision notice would likely be received within 24 hours. Two weeks later on XX/XX/XXXX, after numerous unanswered follow up calls to Rushmore, my realtor made contact with Rushmore and was advised that the " investor '' denied the offer and would not consider anything less than the full loan balance or a deed in lieu of foreclosure. I realize that this is within the bank 's right to decide. My issue is that I was I never properly advised of the short sale process, who truly held authority to approve or disapprove the sale, and the mitigation options that were truly available to me. I was led to believe that Rushmore could, would and did approve a short sale given the property 's value compared to the mortgage balance. I should have been advised, from the beginning, that Rushmore could not approve a short sale and that approval or disapproval was the determination of XXXX XXXX XXXX, the mortgage owner. Now we have spent significant time pursuing a non-option and the overall situation is more dire - further behind on payments, further damage to credit. This situation could have been mitigated with correct and proper information from the beginning, if this processes included involvement of the bank from the beginning, not the end. We have fought, for years, to do the right, responsible thing and maintain this property. Now, because information was withheld, we have lost choice and control over what happens with our property and face significant, detrimental financial impact.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation