Consumer complaint received 2017-09-15 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage — 
Company: Specialized Loan Servicing Holdings LLC
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
iin XXXX XXXX XXXX loans promised us a fixed mmortgage on {$730000.00}, and promised payments did not exceed {$2800.00}. We were willing to put down XXXX to {$240000.00} down payment however XXXX told us not to in the finance the ppurchase without telling us that they were also including a XXXX mortgage which we learned about years later. We filed the lawsuit in XXXX XXXX court as well as state courts and we been up and back and appellate courts. tthe charges have been racketeering, fraud, unfair business practices, XXXX, RESPA and other violations. 

In XXXX specialized loan servicing SLS, took over servicing of the loan from Bank XXXX XXXX and when we informed him of the ongoing litigation they promised to hold off any default or other activity until litigation was complete and for the 5 years we 've heard nothing from them until XXXX weeks ago they recorded notice of foreclosure without any forewarning which is a clear attempt to co-hearses to sell the home. The significant point here is that there was fraud in the origination and servicing of the loan and we are litigating that. None if SLS was willing to live up to the promises of XXXX and forgive the interests that has accrued we would be willing to modify the loan or go through some of the process to work something out however they do not appear to be interested in actually working out a solution which is going after the equity and our home. 

Additionally we have learned iin over 7 years of discovery and the court 's that neither Bank of XXXX or nor anyone else could produce the actual note or the holder in due course. We needed to know who the XXXX is so that we can deal directly with them to negotiate the actual loan that we were promised in XXXX and to eliminate any further fraudulent activities by these predatory servicers. SLS has presented us with documents which are falsified in that they actually are saying that they have authority to be the servicer but they were not appointed the servicer by the actual holder in due course, that is the actual noteholder. SLS in turn has falsified additional documents by substituting a trustee assignment to XXXX XXXX out of XXXX California who is working with aa foreclosure Mill firm XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

SLS has been aware of the fraud since at least XXXX, and its latest actions in XXXX XXXX demonstrates that they are attempting to force us to sell so that we can satisfy the lien from the first mortgage which in turn would ccause us to lose the home which we actually do not want to sell and to which we are holding onto until the litigation is completed and a jury rules XXXX where the other for the parties. 

You can XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX see XXXX of the reversals which have occurred in both federal and state appellate courts. wwe are back in the appellate courts and are again hopeful that we will be receiving reversals in those cases however for a noun we need for an investigation to be performed upon SLS servicing practices and particularly in this case SLS making the representation that they will not pursue any debt collection efforts during the pendency of litigation, and noun hits us with not only the notice of foreclosure but that they have been accruing interests for these years to which they had promised to suspend during the pendency of the litigation.

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