Consumer complaint received 2015-11-21 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure — 
Company: RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
A modification package was sent and received to Rushmore Loan Management, and on XX/XX/2015 the package was confirmed as received by Rushmore employees in the bankruptcy department. The file was flagged as bankruptcy at the time of receipt. The file should have begun the review process at that time .While in bankruptcy any sale date proceedings are placed on hold due to the automatic stay. Regardless of the bk dismissal, at the time the documents were received, the file was still flagged as in bankruptcy with no sale date/foreclosure suspended. On XX/XX/2015 employee XXXX XXXX confirmed the modification file was in, and that the sale date was previously XX/XX/2015. He stated that as of now there is no sale date. He stated as of XXXX -17-2015 the file was removed from the bk department. He stated that on XX/XX/2015 the account was documented that the file can not be reviewed as it is less than 37 days before the sale date. It is very apparent that Rushmore is refusing to review the file and making excuses to avoid a proper review. At the time of receipt there was no sale date as it was suspended. Nothing was done in those two days to even try to assist XXXX XXXX XXXX. Employee XXXX XXXX then returned the call to our office and stated that the file IS in review and that the notes were incorrect as in California there is 7 days to review the file as long as all documents are in. The reason for this complaint is that Rushmore Loan Management has only had this file since XXXX 2015, yet have done everything possible to avoid assisting XXXX XXXX. Rushmore refuses to consider the file in a timely manner therefore negating any opportunity for XXXX XXXX XXXX to save his home. holding onto a file knowing the account is in foreclosure only proves that Rushmore is more interesting in foreclosing on homes and fire selling them at auction to make a profit. It appears that Rushmores lack of participation in a meaningful modification review of the file indicates a preference to profit directly from the homeowners hardship. It appears the problems that XXXX XXXX has encountered with this company are due to discrimination based on his race, ethnicity, language, and national origin. There is no tangible reason why Rushmore is refusing to do a proper review of the file. There are negative notes on the account as well as contradicting information. Please pull XXXX calls from XX/XX/2015 if needed. Please also refer to Handbook XXXX Chapter V Protections Against Unnecessary Foreclosure states the following:XXXX Suspension of Referral to Foreclosure-A servicer may not refer any loan to foreclosure or conduct a scheduled foreclosure sale ( except as provided under Section XXXX ) unless and until the servicer has resolved the Escalated Case in accordance with Section XXXX. XXXX Suspension of Scheduled Foreclosure Sale-When a servicer receives an Escalated Case from a Requestor after a foreclosure sale date has been scheduled and the Escalated Case is received no later than midnight of the seventh business day prior to the foreclosure sale date ( Deadline ), the servicer must suspend the sale as necessary to resolve the Escalated Case. Servicers are not required to suspend a foreclosure sale when an Escalated XXXX is received after the Deadline. At this time we are demanding that the next sale date of XX/XX/2015 be postponed as per foreclosing attorney XXXX there is a set sale date.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation