Consumer complaint received 2026-04-27 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — An existing modification, forbearance plan, short sale, or other loss mitigation relief
Company: Selene Holdings LLC
State: MD

Complaint narrative:
Subject : Escalation Improper Loss Mitigation Handling, Dual-Tracking, and Unfair Servicing Conduct ( Account No. XXXX ) Borrower : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Property : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXX, MD XXXX Servicer : Selene Finance LP CFPB Case No. : XXXX -- - XXXX. XXXX XXXX I am submitting this escalation to supplement and clarify my existing complaint. The record demonstrates that Selene Finance LP engaged in improper loss mitigation handling, contradictory servicing conduct, and potential violations of 12 C.F.R. 1024.41, as well as unfair and deceptive practices. Most critically : - My loss mitigation application was complete as of XX/XX/XXXX - Despite this, Selene continued to : - Characterize the application as incomplete - Request additional documentation without clear justification - State that foreclosure activity may continue during evaluation This conduct appears inconsistent with federal servicing requirements and raises serious compliance concerns. -- - XXXX. XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX of XX/XX/XXXX, I had submitted all requested documentation required for loss mitigation review. Despite this, Selene : - Continued to assert the application was incomplete - Continued to request documents already provided or not reasonably required - Failed to clearly acknowledge the application as complete Under 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( c ), once a complete loss mitigation application is received, the servicer is required to : - Conduct a full evaluation of available loss mitigation options - Provide a decision within 30 days Selenes failure to properly acknowledge and process the application as complete raises concerns of procedural non-compliance. -- - XXXX. XXXX / Foreclosure Conduct Selenes written communication states : Following referral to foreclosure, the foreclosure process may continue during our evaluation of your complete application. This is highly concerning. Under 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( g ) : - A servicer may not move for foreclosure judgment or conduct a foreclosure sale if a complete application has been submitted within the required timeframe. By : - Maintaining an incomplete designation despite a complete submission - Reserving the right to proceed with foreclosure Selene appears to be circumventing RESPA protections through procedural classification. -- - XXXX. Pattern of Incomplete Application Designation Selenes conduct suggests a pattern of : - Keeping the application in an incomplete status - Requesting incremental or duplicative documentation - Avoiding triggering borrower protections tied to a complete application If accurate, this constitutes : Improper delay tactics and potential regulatory evasion I request that Selene provide : - The exact date the application was first deemed complete or incomplete - A complete document checklist used for evaluation - A timeline of all document requests and borrower submissions- Any internal notes or system logs reflecting completeness status -- - XXXX. Contradictory Servicing Conduct The account history shows : - A loan modification executed in XXXX XXXX, which Selene claims brought the account current - Subsequent treatment of the account as requiring new loss mitigation review in XXXX This raises significant concerns : - Why is an account previously modified and cured now being treated as unresolved? - What servicing or accounting actions led to this status? This inconsistency suggests potential servicing errors or misapplication of payments/terms. -- - XXXX. Substantive Unfairness of Prior Modification The XXXX loan modification : - Increased interest rate ( 5.5 % 8.0 % ) - Shortened loan term - Capitalized arrears - Increased monthly payment by approximately 48 % Despite being labeled as loss mitigation, the modification : Materially worsened my financial position rather than providing relief This raises concerns under UDAAP standards ( Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ). -- - XXXX. Debt Collection vs. Liability Position Selene states : - It is a debt collector attempting to collect a debt - While also acknowledging limitations on personal liability in bankruptcy Despite this, Selene : - Continues to impose and enforce increased financial obligations- Maintains foreclosure posture This creates a contradictory and coercive servicing environment, particularly in the context of an active bankruptcy case. -- - XXXX. Requested Resolution / Required Response I request that Selene Finance LP provide the following : XXXX. Formal acknowledgment of XX/XX/XXXX as the complete application date, or a detailed explanation with supporting documentation if disputed XXXX. A full loss mitigation evaluation file, including : - All documents submitted by borrower - Internal review notes - XXXX XXXX ( if applicable ) - Investor guideline references XXXX. A complete timeline of foreclosure actions, including : - Referral date - Any scheduling activity - Any actions taken after XX/XX/XXXX XXXX. Documentation showing compliance with 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 XXXX. Explanation of : - Why the application was treated as incomplete - What documents were allegedly missing and why XXXX. Clarification of : - Why the account required new loss mitigation after a completed XXXX modification XXXX. Confirmation that : - No foreclosure activity will proceed in violation of RESPA protections -- - XXXX. Conclusion The record reflects a pattern of : - Improper classification of a complete application - Continued foreclosure positioning during evaluation - Substantively harmful modification terms - Inconsistent and contradictory servicing conduct These issues warrant full regulatory review and corrective action. -- - Submitted by : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation