Consumer complaint received 2016-04-07
Company: SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.
State: CA
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)
Issue: Loan servicing, payments, escrow account

Complaint:
SPS claims to be a recipient of disputes received from XXXX XXXX and stands firmly holding on to their position. XXXX XXXX does not agree with SPS : She is not missing 46 payments and can prove it. The comment about XXXX XXXX being " dissatisfied with SPS proceedings '' is unprofessional and child like. SPS, now sued in class action, must comprehend the consequence of their mistakes ( s ) by putting XXXX XXXX in fraudulent foreclosure and more, without any surplus or moral awareness, claims XXXX XXXX is at fault by missing 46 payments. This position taken by SPS calls to do a court proceeding. 
XXXX XXXX received XXXX offers and XXXX sets of modification documents dated : XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( paid fees for modification - and made payments but modification never took place due to the bank 's error, XXXX XXXX, XXXX made payments to the bank based on the modification agreement and bank 's requests modification never took place due to the bank 's error and final one in XXXX XXXX that XXXX also made all the payments ) .In XXXX XXXX took over XXXX during the time their accounting was inconsistent and chaotic and a total mess. Still, XXXX XXXX was making payments in XXXX but never got documents from the bank confirming modification was legal. It was illegal modifications, investor decided to back -up and there was no investor but modification that was never signed by the bank and although I paid as per modification agreement : there was no modification! 
XXXX agreed to a XXXX modification offered to her, along with and apologies for previous ill failed modifications of badly handled accounting and other mistakes. [ XXXX XXXX spoke with XXXX XXXX ( got a letter from him XXXX/XXXX/XXXX ) a rep. from XXXX in XXXX and agreed to modification with a new principle balance of {$940000.00} and XXXX making adjustments adding {$17000.00} and {$20000.00} that brought the balance up to a high sum of {$940000.00} with the first payment due XXXX XXXX, XXXX. Modification did not state in the document that escrow account was created although XXXX claims to make an escrow account in XXXX due to a lack of insurance. It is false claim and XXXX credits back money to the account ( see payment history XXXX. XXXX XXXX told XXXX XXXX to be getting her own insurance while he will collecting money up front for future taxes the bank was going to pay .Bank took XXXX for taxes alone but not insurance. Insurance, he said, was optional. 
SPS claims that during the time from XXXX to XXXX there are 46 payments missed. SPS is wrong. XXXX XXXX XXXX responded through their legal counsel : XXXX XXXX, XXXX that XXXX XXXX defaulted Loan Modification Agreement on XXXX XXXX [ a copy that they enclosed ] ... and the Loan was due for XXXX XXXX, XXXX installment and all installments thereafter at the time of the transfer of servicing. XXXX denies allegation of defaulting the loan due for XX/XX/XXXX.She made all the payments from XXXX XXXX until XXXX XXXX and thereafter until put in fraudulent default status in XXXX and band from making her payments to the XXXX ( see attached ). 
SPS, on the other hand, claims that modification in XXXX was updated in XXXX XXXX and the loan was brought current, however, as per court ordering and courts ratification the loan was modified with new principle as of XXXX XXXX with the first payment on XXXX XXXX. ( see attached XXXX XXXX XXXX never missed any of her payments but was put in default and therefore not able to make payments. 
XXXX XXXX made all the payments since modification with due date of XXXX XXXX XXXX until she was stopped by the bank that claimed she missed her payments .In XXXX she, XXXX XXXX was in default, according to the bank, and was not allowed to make her payments as of XX/XX/XXXX while in a default.She sued the bank and the bank offered her money and went forward with fouclousure.

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