Consumer complaint received 2022-09-13
Company: RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC
State: CT
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage

Complaint:
Time is of the essence in this case because the setting of Connecticut law days is imminent and the servicer -- aware that I'm an owner of the subject property -- is refusing to offer any review that might lead to a loan modification insisting it can't ascertain if I'm truly a successor-in-interest. [ The property devised to the heirs after the XXXX  of my mother XXXX XXXX in XXXX ]. 

Rushmore Loan Management will not allow the submission of a loan modification because it insists I'm not authorized as a successor-in-interest. I was, according to Rushmore single point-of-contact representatives, authorized for a time, but that authorization was withdrawn at about the time Rushmore -- through it's Attorney -- sought to establish law day in Connecticut Superior Court, whereby the ownership of the home would vest in the mortgagee. 

Rushmore 's Attorney XXXX, affiliated with XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, CT, is aware that I am a successor-in-interest but has refused to pass that information along to Rushmore. I have been a successor-in-interest and Defendant in Court cases concerning this mortgage for several years, a fact well known to XXXX XXXX. 

Rushmore representatives in recent telephone conversations with me have explained alternately that more documents are necessary, and that the documents sent are in review, but that they can't speak with me except to say their decision on my successor-in-interest status is pending. [ Rushmore has copies of the deeds, a letter from the estate Executor, and a copy of my Connecticut driver 's license. Further, it has access to the XXXX file, in which my identity as owner of the subject property was long-ago established ]. 

I called Rushmore Friday XX/XX/XXXX and was told by loss mitigation representative, " XXXX, '' that she couldn't speak with me because I wasn't authorized but that she could give me the name of the Attorney handling the matter. After a brief pause, she told me that in fact she couldn't give me the name of the Attorney, nor could she inform me on the status of documents sent to Rushmore to substantiate that I'm an owner of the subject property because I'm unauthorized, but that I might perhaps be updated on the status of documents sent-in by emailing Rushmore. 

It should be noted that XXXX, an earlier servicer on this mortgage had acknowledged a complete loss mitigation application signed by myself and the other two owners in XX/XX/XXXX [ Exhibit A ], but that during the apparent review of that application, servicing changed from XXXX  to XXXX and ultimately to Rushmore, and the application was never acted upon. 

Neither Rushmore nor XXXX reviewed the application on file at XXXX. Both said by telephone that they'd be conducting a review of their own with a new moss mitigation application to submitted for their review. 

Rushmore, it would appear, is not interested in offering a loan modification, but is seeking -- through unclean hands -- the cash value of the home. 

[ Rushmore Loan # XXXX XXXX XXXX. Property address : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, CT XXXX ].

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation