Consumer complaint received 2020-10-16
Company: SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.
State: AZ
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Other type of mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process

Complaint:
XXXX XXXX/SPS XXXX XXXX  MANEUVER TO CONCEAL XXXX XXXX-ORIGINATED  TOXIC MORTGAGES THAT WERE SERVICED BY IT CLANDESTINE SUBSIDIARY : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. ( XXXX  ). THIS ILLEGAL MANEUVER WAS AN INTEGRAL FEATURE OF THE XXXX RMBS TRUST CERTIFICATE SCAM ; AND WAS INTENDED TO HIDE ALL XXXX-ORIGINATED  TOXIC MORTGAGE FROM DOJ INVESTIGATORS. THIS WOULD ALLOW XXXX TO CLAIM THAT IT WAS AN INNOCENT VICTIM OF THIS MULTI-BILLION-DOLLAR MORTGAGE SECURITIZATION SCHEME ; AND THUS, THAT XXXX WAS ENTERING INTO THE SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS WITH CLEANS HANDS. SEPENDITIOUSLY, THE XXXX-PAID MONITOR OF THE $ XXXX RELIEF/RESTITUTION AWARDED TO CONSUMERS IN THE SETTLEMENT OF THE $ XXXX XXXX RMBS TRUST SCAM, REPORTED THAT XXXX RECEIVED INCENTIVES ON LOANS IT HELD FOR INVESTMENT AS OPPOSED TO LOANS SERVICED BY OTHERS. 
In XXXX, after numerous federal and state civil claims arising from the sale of Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities ( RMBS ) by  XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX  XXXX prior to XXXX XXXX, XXXX, the Department of Justice ( DOJ ) filed a landmark lawsuit against XXXX XXXX and Company for illegal activities related to the packaging, marketing, sale and issuance of RMBS Trust Certificates. On XX/XX/XXXX, just three weeks before the DOJ announced its settlement of the XXXX RMBS Lawsuit, XXXX and XXXX XXXX received a letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) notifying them that their mortgage, which at the time was being serviced, by XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( who from XXXX to XXXX was a hidden, wholly-owned subsidiary of XXXX ; and which, in XXXX was merged into XXXX  ) was being outsourced to Select Portfolio Servicing , Inc. and when they called XXXX they were told that they did not have anything to worry about because this mortgage was in good standing and only the servicing rights for their being outsourced. Mr. XXXX was told that XXXX would still be responsible for all mortgage loan related issues, including the unresolved XXXX   Discrimination formally filed by Mr. XXXX with XXXX XXXX XXXX, Vice President of the XXXX Legal and Compliance Department in both XXXX and XXXX. The attached copy of Good-bye and Good-Riddance letter sent to XXXX XXXX and tens of thousands of other holders of XXXX-originated  Toxic Mortgages on XX/XX/XXXX, announcing this servicing mortgage agreement, explicitly stated that only the servicing rights were being outsourced, and XXXX would still own the mortgages and would be accountable for any problems resulting from the origination and servicing of these Toxic Mortgages prior to XX/XX/XXXX. The DOJs settlement of the XXXX RMBS Trust Lawsuit was announced on XX/XX/XXXX, and $ XXXX of the fine assessed to XXXX was designated as Consumer Relief/Restitution : XXXX will pay out the remaining {$4.00} XXXX in the form of relief to aid consumers harmed by the unlawful conduct of XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX  XXXX. 
XXXX XXXX and Company, the defendant in this lawsuit, was named the sole administrator ( without any Oversight or Monitoring from the CFPB, HUD, or the Housing and Enforcement Section of the DOJ ) of the $ XXXX Consumer Relief/Restitution Settlement. It is unlikely that this unprecedented action would not have occurred, had the DOJ been aware of the role of XXXX affiliates : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in originating more than one-hundred-and-seventy-five thousand Toxic Mortgages included in the XXXX XXXX XXXX  lawsuit. 
The final report from the Chase-Paid Consumer Relief Monitor, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, shows that XXXX home mortgage loans received some form of relief ( Restitution ) from the $ XXXX Consumer Relief Provision of the settlement of XXXX RMBS Trust Lawsuit. This relief/restitution included : a. ) Loan Modifications, b. ) Principal Reductions, and last but not least, c. ) Principal Forgiveness. The XX/XX/XXXX, Consumer Relief Report for the XXXX XXXX  Settlement included the following caveat : XXXX receives incentives for certain relief conducted in the first year, in the hardest-hit areas, AND ON LOANS HELD FOR INVESTMENT AS OPPOSED TO LOANS SERVICED BY OTHERS. 
When the above caveat is viewed in the context of the timing of the XXXX XXXX/SPS XXXX XXXX XXXX, it leads to the conclusion that the serviced by other phraseology was specifically used to exclude the tens of thousands of chase-originated Toxic Mortgages which were outsourced to SPS less than three weeks before the XXXX XXXX  Settlement Agreement was announced. Some of this $ XXXX consumer relief/restitution may have been diverted to mortgages held by XXXX for investment purposes. In XXXX and XXXX, when Mr. XXXX repeatedly requested additional information regarding the requirement of mortgagors to qualify for the $ XXXX Consumer Relief/Restitution, multiple SPS employees from both the SPS Ombudsmans Office and the SPS Customer Advocate Office claim to have no knowledge of this restitution, and refused to forward his formal written requests to XXXX.

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