Consumer complaint received 2021-12-09
Company: Specialized Loan Servicing Holdings LLC
State: MN
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage

Complaint:
Synopsis : We are requesting help retaining our home of 24 years. It is being threatened with foreclosure after our XXXX forbearance became due immediately. We assert our mortgage servicer, Specialized Loan Servicing ( SLS ) and the investor, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, were deceptive by not providing clear and transparent information that XXXX XXXX forbearance, a lump sum ( {$56000.00} ) was our only home retention option. We do not have anywhere near that amount and SLS has not given us any reasonable means to avoid foreclosure. Before forbearance we were current on our payments and never would have entered into XXXX related forbearance if we had known a lump sum was the only resolution- we would have sought other options. Also, we were told we were evaluated and then reassured that there were other retention options during the 18-month forbearance. 


We have until XX/XX/XXXX to make our account current or SLS will begin accelerated foreclosure and we will also be responsible for legal costs. If we didnt know better, we would think SLS and the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX taking advantage of the pandemic to force us out of our home. We want to stay in our house and are willing to work together with SLS and the investor on any affordable options to prevent foreclosure. 

Detail : In XX/XX/XXXX due to the XXXX pandemic we had a reduction in household income. At the time we were current on our mortgage payments. I contacted SLS and inquired about forbearance and the terms. SLS stated they evaluated our account and it was given ( Exhibit A ). I never filled out an application or received any legal documentation describing any conditions or qualifications. With the continuation of XXXX I extended the three-month forbearance six times and at each extension SLS claimed to evaluate our account before each extension ( Exhibit A ). 

I was concerned about the impact of forbearance and during the 18 months contacted SLS frequently asking about XXXX options available ( Exhibit B ). The only letter I received indicating a lump sum was due at the end of forbearance was dated XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit A, page XXXX ) ; all the other extensions never mention this. In XX/XX/XXXX before the end of the first forbearance, I was reassured by SLS agents that lump sum was not the only option and not to be concerned as almost always the deficit could be resolved with an affordable option and they would work with us. No documentation I received ever stated lump sum could be the only retention option. 

Forbearance ended on XX/XX/XXXX and I was prepared and able to resume making monthly payments. On XX/XX/XXXX I applied for loan mitigation assistance as instructed by SLS. Assistance was denied ( Exhibit C ) on XX/XX/XXXX. SLS claimed the mortgage was at the loan modification limit according to investor guidelines. I had no indication this was a possibility and was shocked that we were being forced to give up our home unless we could come up with {$56000.00}. We do not have anywhere near this amount available. SLS offered short sale or deed in lieu of foreclosure. We do not want to give up our home so these were not viable options for us. 

I requested an independent review on XX/XX/XXXX and got the same response. In the appeal letter ( Exhibit D ) I stated that I was never informed about investor rules and was constantly told by SLS agents there were other options than a lump sum. The appeal was denied by SLS on XX/XX/XXXX and communicated in a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit XXXX ). In the rejection SLS stated " ... a complete loss mitigation application was needed to evaluate the account for all available options. '' ( Exhibit XXXX ). In effect SLS and the investor would not have told me this modification limit until I applied for a loan modification. However, this " XXXX '' requires that I go through forbearance to know my financial situation before I could apply for loss mitigation and only then find out there were no realistic retention options. 

I do not think the investor rules were difficult for SLS to discern and notify us. At each forbearance extension request SLS stated the account would be evaluated ( Exhibit A ). In the subsequent approval SLS never stated ( or discovered ) that the loan had exceeded the modification limit. I also note that for our appeal it took only three business days for SLSs independent review ( dated XX/XX/XXXX ) to make this determination ( Exhibit XXXX ) - implying this did not take much effort and could have been easily determined when we first applied for forbearance. 

Since being denied any retention options other than lump sum, on multiple calls to SLS I offered to accept a payment plan or any reasonable means to stay in our house. Currently, our financial outlook is positive and I restarted payments in XX/XX/XXXX and will continue. It is only the XXXX forbearance payments that are outstanding. 

Lastly, on XX/XX/XXXX XXXX sent a notification ( Exhibit F ) stating they will begin accelerated foreclosure in on XX/XX/XXXX if we do not bring our account current. An SLS agent told me we are on the fast track for foreclosure. We are asking for some resolution before foreclosure begins and we are also liable for any legal costs. I have explored refinancing but we were unqualified because of the forbearance. I also looked into government mortgage assistance programs, but we are not qualified. 

Conclusion : We contend : 1. It was in the least negligent and possibly deceptive for SLS and the investor to have offered forbearance when they could have easily told me in advance that we were ineligible for loan modification. 
2. As such I did not get accurate and timely information to make an informed decision on forbearance. It is not my fault that we did not receive pertinent information that I had no realistic retention options. SLS stated they could not tell me this until I applied for a loan modification however it makes no sense to apply for a loan modification until I went through forbearance and only then knew our financial situation. Knowing that a lump sum was the only retention option, I never would have entered into forbearance and consequently put our home at risk. I was continually reassured during the extensions that SLS would work with us, but they arent. 
3. In the initial forbearance was I told the lump sum amount, all subsequent letters mention that SLS wont know the assistance that can be offered until I apply, but no lump sum is mentioned. In this correspondence they state : we realize that most people will not have the funds to immediately pay the months of paused payments 4. We do not know regulatorily what is required from the investor but the CFPB website page ( https : //www.consumerfinance.gov/coronavirus/mortgage-forbearance-during-covid-19-what-know-what-do/ ) states : Forbearance ends with a payment plan, not a lump-sum payment Homeowners who receive COVID hardship forbearance are not required to repay their paused payments in a lump sum once the forbearance period ends. 
How can a lump sum payment be expected at the end of the forbearance when we did not have the means to keep up with payments to begin with? 
5. I was current on our mortgage at the beginning of forbearance and would have continued to be except for this natural disaster. COVID-19 is unprecedented and should be handled as such despite investor guidelines. We have financially recovered, resumed making payments, and will continue. 
XXXX. As a secondary complaint, during the last several months I never talked to the same person at SLS twice. I was assigned a single point of contact but that person was never available when I asked. Depending on who I talked to I was given different options on what possible actions to take. Most notably on XX/XX/XXXX I talked for a long time with a very concerned and sympathetic agent who said she would propose a repayment plan to her team and let me know in a week. A week later after not hearing anything I called and talked to someone else who said it was denied almost immediately according to their records. Im not sure if I would have heard a decision if I hadnt called, but it wasted a week of our time on a tight timeline with foreclosure looming. Its also frustrating since I seemed to talk to two different departments, one has to do with mitigation and the other possibly foreclosure prevention. They dont seem to talk to each other. Each time I have to explain the circumstances and start from the beginning. 

I built the house in XXXX, raised a family here, and invested much time and money in upkeep and improvements. This is where my wife and I plan to retire. I repeat from our review letter to SLS and the investor : Despite the loan modification limit, we are also making an appeal for understanding and help. We are desperate to keep our home and all we have invested and honestly do not know where we will go if we are forced to move. 

Attachments : Exhibit A. Offers of forbearance and possible resolution options from SLS Exhibit B. Online messages asking about resolution options Exhibit C. Loan modification denial Exhibit D. Request for denial review Exhibit E. Loan modification appeal denial Exhibit F. Notice of intent to foreclose letter Exhibit G. This complaint

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