Consumer complaint received 2016-04-25
Company: SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.
State: CA
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Complaint:
To Whom It May Concern, I have been fighting for my home for the better part of four years now. Much to my frustration, I have n't gotten very fair in my fight. The foreclosing trustee on my property went out of business and the foreclosing process was stalled for nearly a year and a half. Select Portfolio Servicing , Inc., hereinafter referred to as SPS, did not respond to my numerous requests for information and completely left me in the dark as to what was going on. Out of the blue last month, I received a substitution of trustee that informed me that the trustee handling the foreclosure on my home was being substituted for XXXX XXXX XXXX. In addition, a new Notice of Sale was recorded on my property, giving me a sale date of XXXX XXXX, 2016. This highly infuriated me. I do n't understand how SPS can take this action when they do not have the authority or right to initiate or proceed with a foreclosure against my home. After years of being frustrated from not receiving the information I requested and upon learning that due to nondisclosure of material information, my rescission rights were still available to me due to equitable tolling, I mailed a Notice to Rescind to SPS canceling my Deed of Trust and Promissory Note on XXXX XXXX, 2016. Pursuant to the Federal Truth in Lending Act, hereinafter referred to as TILA, SPS had twenty days to take all necessary steps to void my Deed of Trust or in the alternative file a declaratory lawsuit against me challenging the rescission. SPS took no action. SPS in clearly in violation of the mandatory laws are requirements under TILA. They are prohibited in proceeding with a foreclosure on a Deed of Trust that is void by operation of law. SPS received my Notice to Rescind on XXXX XXXX, 2016. More than 20 days have expired and SPS took no action whatsoever. As confirmed by a unanimous Supreme Court decision, the only thing I needed to make my rescission effective was to provide a written notice to my lender to exercise my right to rescind. The statute makes no distinction between the right to rescind in 3 days or extended as neither case nor statute give courts equitable discretion to alter TILA 's substantive provisions. Operation of law is a way in which someone acquires certain rights automatically under the law without taking individual actions or being the subject of a court order. It is held immune from courts ' equitable modification authority. Under the law, it is not only wrongful but illegal for SPS to proceed with a foreclosure on my home on XXXX XXXX, 2016. Under TILA, Lender must comply within twenty ( 20 ) days - return canceled note, satisfy mortgage, and return money to borrower or in the alternative, lenders MUST file a lawsuit challenging the rescission within twenty ( 20 ) days or their defenses are forever waived. Any other interpretation would make the rescission contingent, which is opposite of what TILA and the U.S. Supreme Court say. I believe it was necessary for me to file this complaint because it appears SPS believes it can violate these laws without any consequences of their actions. I am seeking the assistance of the Consumer Financial Bureau to assist me in taking action against SPS for violating federal law. 
Sincerely, XXXX XXXX

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