Consumer complaint received 2020-01-13
Company: SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.
State: OK
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage

Complaint:
While I have repeatedly been told by SPS that XXXX XXXX is the owner, this latest letter dated XX/XX/XXXX confirms that. However, I received a letter from XXXX XXXX saying they are only the trustee and SPS makes all decisions. I inquired back in XX/XX/XXXX of the owner and both companies policies on inspection and late fees. SPS send people to my home banging on my doors, sometimes scaring my children and/or talking to my son while he's playing basketball. When they know we are still in the home. XXXX XXXX says they are merely the trustee. The assignment claim filed in XX/XX/XXXX two years ( against Oklahoma law ) later and after multiple foreclosure attempts, says XXXX XXXX is the owner. One signature on the assignment is going to testify on my behave that she was never a manager with XXXX, just a call rep. The claim is falsified, and they get away with it. I have repeatedly asked who would receive the money when the loan is paid in full. And why the amount continues to change. There is a sale set for XX/XX/XXXX in the name of XXXX XXXX. SPS continues to lie to not only me, but numerous consumers. Complaints are on this website and multiple consumer protection sites, including the XXXX. I have been charged {$75.00} numerous months for inspection fees. If this is the servicers policy or XXXX XXXX, either way it is against the law. SPS sent a letter saying they made the decision in the interest of the trust. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX and XXXX ) is out of business and has been out of business since XX/XX/XXXX. Predatory lending is real, and their is no doubt as a single XXXX mother I got caught up in the deal. Just in XX/XX/XXXX I was told by a SPS representative if I could not afford the home I should move. I called to ask why the escrow shortage increased my loan by {$200.00}. And I got no explanation. I received a modification in XX/XX/XXXX and then they continued to raise my rates. They even had a repayment plan for me to " catch up '' to double my payment with no explanation of the numbers. They wanted me to pay over {$1300.00} without explaining. My relationship manager never reaches out. I have spoken with her once because I asked for a call back. She is never the one that calls or send correspondence. It is alway some random representative. My attorney has suggested filing for bankruptcy which I will do on the day of the sale or the day before. It is horrible what this company is allowed to do. I have no idea where my money is going since XXXX XXXX is not the owner only the trustee. I have no idea how they are the name on the foreclosure action. I have tried to do everything to save my home, the only home myself and XXXX children have ever known. We have lived in the home for 13 years. I have missed payments, but every modification I have completed and kept up with. It wasn't until XX/XX/XXXX when they said I owed over {$200.00} a month for escrow shortage. I have fought and fought and bankruptcy is the only option since the XXXX government will not hold these predators accountable. My insurance agent is a dear friend and my rates have not increased and property taxes actually decreased one year so escrow shortage makes no sense to me. SPS ' parent company XXXX XXXX had a complaint and lost against them after an investigation, [ XXXX ] the Attorney General commenced this action in XX/XX/XXXX asserting that the issuance of residential mortgage-backed securities by defendants XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX and affiliated entities ( XXXX XXXX ) in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX violated the Martin Act. The complaint alleges that defendants committed multiple fraudulent and deceptive acts in connection with the creation and sale of residential mortgage-backed securities ( " RMBS '' ). In particular, the Attorney General claimed that defendants led investors to believe that they had " carefully evaluated and would continue to monitor '' the quality of loans underlying the RMBS. However, the complaint asserts that defendants.

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