On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, through counsel, submitted a complaint ( # XXXX ) to the CFPB asserting that Seterus, Inc., violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA ) in failing to communicate with him as a " successor-in-interest '' to property subject to a mortgage loan serviced by XXXX and therefore also failed to mitigate its damages. XXXX ' late wife, XXXX, was the only person the note, but both XXXX and XXXX signed the mortgage defined as borrowers. The complaint asserted that XXXX and XXXX owned the property as " tenants by the entireties, '' and both prior to the complaint and within the complaint, XXXX provided Seterus a copy of the Warranty Deed to the property showing such ownership and a copy of XXXX ' Death Certificate. This evidence clearly showed that not only was XXXX a successor-in-interest to the property ( because he became the sole owner by operation of law ), but that he 's ALWAYS had an interest in the property at the same time XXXX had her interest in the property. This documentation unequivocally shows XXXX ' successor-in-interest status, and as such, Seterus should have been satisfied XXXX was indeed a successor-in-interest and it should have communicated with XXXX about the mortgage loan and offered loss mitigation options to him -- but Seterus did not do that. 
Instead, Seterus responded ( through its representative, XXXX -- not clear whether she 's an attorney ) that it still wants " recorded documentation showing XXXX is the Executor, Personal Representative, or Administrator of the Estate of XXXX. '' With this response, Seterus is requiring XXXX to exert his own resources and judicial resources to put property through probate that is not required to go through probate for XXXX to obtain a legal interest in such property. Probating the property is not required because he always had an interest in the property, as evidenced by the RECORDED Warranty Deed, and because he became the sole owner of the property by operation of law when XXXX died. 
Seterus ' response further said, " in lieu of the above-referenced documentation, XXXX may also contact me directly at the telephone number shown below and advise that he is authorized to pay the decedent 's debt from the assets of the estate, which will allow him authorization to speak to us regarding the loan. '' XXXX disagrees that calling XXXX to say the magic words she wants him to say in any way tends to prove he is a successor-in-interest to the property more than the recorded Warranty Deed and Death Certificate does, much less at all. Regardless, XXXX called XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Both times he was forced to leave a message, and both times, XXXX failed to return his call. As such, Seterus continues to put up artificial barriers to XXXX being able to work out loss mitigation options to save his home from foreclosure. 
Also, XXXX submitted a loss mitigation application, which was received by Seterus on XX/XX/XXXX As of today, XX/XX/XXXX, Seterus has failed to notify XXXX within 5 days of receiving the loss mitigation application that it acknowledged receipt of the application and that it determined the loss mitigation application is either complete or incomplete, as is required in Regulation X at 12 CFR 1024.41 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( i ) ( B ). Moreover, Seterus has failed, within 30 days of receiving XXXX ' loss mitigation application, to evaluate him for all loss mitigation options available to him and to provide him with a notice in writing stating its determination of which loss mitigation options, if any, it will offer him, as is required by Regulation X at 12 CFR 1024.41 ( c ) ( 1 ). So, Seterus continues to violate RESPA.