Consumer complaint received 03-01-2017 about Mortgage (Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)) with Specialized Loan Servicing LLC (CA).
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Complaint: Specialized Loan Servicing LLC ( SLS ) failed to offer all the loan modifications my mortgage investor, XXXX XX/XX/2005, makes available based on the language in their pooling and servicing agreement. My loan is not guaranteed by the federal government. SLS only offered programs that are available for federal guaranteed loans. Further, SLS failed to state the " applicable requirements '' for XXXX XX/XX/2005 as required by RESPA Section 1024.41 ( d ) 1. 

My loan modification appeal letters and Qualified Written Request actually stated the requirements and guidelines in the pooling and servicing agreement and what modifications that allowed. In SLS seven response letters to my letters, they never even acknowledged that each of my letters cited the PSA and proved what my mortgage investors requirements were. Each SLS letter repeated that they had to follow the investors requirements, could not do otherwise, and had made available all the loan modifications my investors allow. So they ignored the facts, never discussed those facts and repeated in a non-responsive way their position. 

SLS has never acknowledge or discussed directly their violation of Section 1024.41 ( d ) 1 I mentioned. Instead, they would refer to clauses in RESPA and Regulation X that said they did n't have to disclose anything about the PSA. Their responses used the original language of RESPA before it was amended and failed to account for what the CFPB said in its interpretation of the final rules that were published in the Federal Register. Once again, they would not directly discuss an issue presented and used boilerplate language which was not relevant or had been amended to justify their non-responsive position. 

What started out as my attempt to have SLS offer me a loan modification my mortgage investor allows and approves of, turned into something greater. Through SLS letters to me and my six responses which total 46 pages, SLS demonstrated in its responses that what it was saying to me is most likely how it deals with all loan modification applicants and all borrowers. So this complaint is not just about my loan. It is about all loans serviced by SLS that are not guaranteed by the federal government. Based on how they incorrectly apply RESPA and their use of repetitive answers which are non-responsive to facts and issues presented, there is a high probability this reflects how SLS deals with all borrowers. 

I have read RESPA and Regulation X, the CFPB interpretations of the final rules published in the Federal Register, the Mortgage Settlement Act, California law, U.S. trust law, pooling and servicing agreements, and studied th operations and structure of the mortgage servicing industry. I have also talked with attorneys and other experts about all this including an attorney who works for the XXXX. My complaint is the accumulation of over 2000 hours of research and analysis about issues that relate to mortgage servicing. I may be submitting a complaint as a consumer about my loan but I 'm also a management consultant who is submitting this complaint on behalf of all borrowers. 

Let me summarize what SLS has done wrong here. SLS did not follow XXXX XX/XX/2005 Sale and Servicing Agreement requirements and guidelines for loan modifications. SLS failed to meet the burden of offering all the loss mitigation options the investor allows as the CFPB requires. SLS failed to state the applicable requirements of XXXX XX/XX/2005 that RESPA Section 1024.41 ( d ) 1 requires. SLS falsely stated that it is following the requirements of XXXX XX/XX/2005 when it is not and evidence has been presented to prove it is not. SLS incorrectly used clauses from RESPA and Regulation X to justify it 's lack of disclosure. 

This remains an active appeal. 

Attached is a 16 page case that justifies a CFPB investigation and enforcement action

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