Consumer complaint received 2024-02-14 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — FHA mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure
Company: Mr. Cooper Group Inc.
State: NC

Complaint narrative:
Rushmore Servicing used unfair, abusive, and deceptive practices by repeatedly providing misinformation, failing to provide loss mitigation options, concealed information, repeatedly initiated account actions without borrowers knowledge or expressed consent, and failed to correct within the 30+ days of borrowers repeated verbal and written requests.

Rushmore Servicing used unfair, abusive, and deceptive practices by advising the need to complete a modification questionnaire in order to process a written no income XXXX  Special Forbearance application. Rushmore Servicing loss mitigation XXXX  answered modification questionnaire on borrowers behalf without prior knowledge or expressed consent from borrower. Rushmore Servicing did not follow FHA guidelines for financial review to process XXXX and concealed information about actual service being rendered on borrowers loan without borrowers expressed consent or knowledge. 
Specifically, from XX/XX/XXXX - XX/XX/XXXX Rushmore Servicing repeatedly failed to process no income Special Forbearance SFB request within timeline given, misinformed and misled borrower on the process and availability of options. On XX/XX/XXXX, Rushmore Servicing loss mitigation spoc XXXX XXXX was directed by an Escalation Supervisor XXXX in California to submit a modification questionnaire on borrowers behalf to complete the SFB requested. When borrower questioned spoc with the inaccuracies surrounding request to date, spoc advised she had completed the questionnaire without borrowers consent or knowledge prior to being in contact with borrower because she knew the answers. 

The XXXX Application initially started on XX/XX/XXXX on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. Then on XX/XX/XXXX after checking status the XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX form XXXX XXXX was introduced as the manual written process as directed by specialist XXXX. XXXX advised previous application was not received as Rushmore Servicing did not have access to Rushmore Loan Management Services systems. Specialist advised would need to fax non-borrower daughters bank statement, XXXX IRS tax from 1040, and check stubs in addition to completing new application. Borrower initially stated could get daughter to help. Subsequently, borrower specifically asked if Rushmore Servicing offered deferments I mean like a Forbearance you know like a student loan? Rushmore Servicing specialist XXXX advised would need to complete XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX using new fax number provided AND he would need to send form electronically to attorney of record at that time XXXX XXXX XXXX 

On XX/XX/XXXX Rushmore Servicing specialist XXXX advised he did not see previously submitted XXXX  Application due to obstruction in system but could setup a modification or partial claim. XXXX asked XXXX to hold off on such service as there was a need for more information and options and to delete whatever XXXX had started. Subsequently, borrower specifically asked if XXXX XXXX offered XXXX? XXXX advised he didnt submit anything, then asked are you unemployed?. The borrower stated was unemployed and had already faxed hardship letter, unemployment determination letter from dept of commerce, and the completed XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX form XXXX XXXX. Specialist advised could see the number of pages faxed but couldnt see the documents. Specialist advised previous specialist was incorrect and would send correct from XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX from XXXX XXXX aka Uniform Borrower Assistance Application to attorney of record XXXX XXXX. Rushmore Servicing specialist XXXX advised would schedule a callback for XX/XX/XXXX. 

On XX/XX/XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXushmore Servicing specialist XXXX XXXX account and assessed needs then advised the XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX being used as the XXXX was the XXXX application to submit for XXXX  and to XXXX hardship letter, unemployment determination, and to call back on XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX to check status. Advised the process generally takes up to 30 days to complete from the time of receipt. 

On XX/XX/XXXX Rushmore Servicing actions led to the initiation of the HAMP/Partial Claim and Modification without borrowers prior knowledge or expressed consent. Rushmore Servicing subsequently transferred the loan to XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX after modifying it without borrowers consent. 
Rushmore Servicing in turn packaged a 40 year 7 % interest rate modification, XXXX/Partial Claim without borrowers knowledge, request, or consent on XX/XX/XXXX with an effective date of XX/XX/XXXX. 

On XX/XX/XXXX at XXXXXXXX XXXX Rushmore Servicing specialisXXXX XXXX advised loan modification was completed on account and awaiting documentation to be generated. Borrower asked what is the status of the XXXX  Forbearance. Specialist could not provide a status on XXXX. 

On XX/XX/XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  Rushmore Servicing XXXX XXXX advised a loan modification had been completed with payments at {$1700.00} starting on XX/XX/XXXX. Specialist advised did not see a good bye letter indicating account transfer. Specialist advised did not see a status on XXXX application. Borrower asked what was Mr Cooper fined for by the CFPB. Specialist advised was unaware and hoped the borrower got squared away as requested on XX/XX/XXXX. Specialist scheduled callback on XX/XX/XXXX from loss mitigation spoc XXXX XXXX. 
From XX/XX/XXXX- XX/XX/XXXX loss mitigation spoc XXXX XXXX did not callback. 

On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX  Rushmore Servicing XXXX XXXX advised could not locate a good bye letter in systems but located a modification processed on XX/XX/XXXX. Specialist advised could not locate XXXX as previously requested. Specialist attempted to process XXXX request within Rushmore Servicing system. However, specialist was prevented from completing online SFB due to existing HAMP creation. Borrower advised specialist had not heard from loss mitigation spoc XXXX XXXX. Specialist advised would escalate to manager to assist with request and manager or specialist would follow up via phone to provide status of XXXX. 

On XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX EST Rushmore Servicing XXXX XXXX XXXX a XXXX was processed. XXXX asked who requested a XXXX? Borrower asked what is the status of XXXX request? Specialist advised would need to reach out to loss mitigation spoc via teams chat. XXXX asked to speak with spocs XXXX. XXXX advised chat system was down and couldnt contact either but would send email and get a response within XXXX hours. XXXX asked was their third party communication. XXXX advised yes. XXXX asked what was the date of third party communication while XXXX communicated via chat. XXXX advised it was a mistake she didnt see third party communication. XXXX asked XXXX not to incriminate herself with use of guise. XXXX advised would request to remove XXXX in order to process requested forbearance. XXXX asked XXXX to schedule a callback with loss prevention spoc XXXX due to repetitive deception and delays since XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX advised loss prevention would contact within XXXX hours. XXXX advised XXXX hours started on XX/XX/XXXX and to escalate the matter due to risk associated with internal transfer. XXXX advised XXXX there had been a practice of misinformation misleading and deceit. XXXX advised had scheduled callback. 

On XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX EST Rushmore Servicing loss mitigation spoc XXXX XXXX XXXX via phone advising the matter was being resolved as of 10 days prior. XXXX asked spoc to refrain from being deceptive as the modification had already processed 10 days prior and was being removed in effort to create XXXX per previous XXXX XXXX. XXXX asked spoc how was a XXXX created if borrower requested a SFB, had no continuous income, and spoc escalated application to management and senior leadership due to fallout? XXXX agreed she had already escalated : to have been done so on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX advised spoc would file official complaint with CFPB if matter was not immediately resolved by XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. 
On XX/XX/XXXX Rushmore Servicing standard overnighted modification agreement without borrowers prior consent or knowledge and without having a means of repayment as borrower is currently unemployed. 

On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX  Rushmore Servicing loss mitigation spoc advised borrower XXXX  XXXX had gone under review status. XXXX advised it should be processed soon as it had just gone under review on XX/XX/XXXX. 

On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX EST Rushmore Servicing XXXX XXXX XXXX borrowers loan had gone under Partial Claim review status. XXXX advised XXXX was no longer an option and that XXXX was only associated with COVID. XXXX asked XXXX to transfer to loss mitigation spoc. XXXX tried contacting spoc to no avail and transferred to the FHA department. Rushmore Servicing FHA specialist XXXX joined the called and advised would be looking into the XXXX application. Specialist probed for XXXX questionnaire and advised it should be processed soon as it had just gone under review on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX advised the XXXX processing would be within XXXX to 7 days. XXXX advised XXXX the loan had already been transferred with an effective date of XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX advised would have contact through completion up to 60 days post transfer. XXXXrrower asked if specialist saw written request for bill of sale, deed of trust, title? Specialist asked why was borrower requesting copies? Borrower advised for personal records. Specialist advised did not see written correspondence via email from XXXX or XX/XX/XXXX. Borrower requested fax number to forward written correspondence. Specialist advised make attention to customer relations. 

On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX  Rushmore Servicing loss mitigation spoc XXXX XXXX called to advise of the same information previously stated the day before that SFB XXXX under review and should be completed in few days. However, XXXX has NEVER gone under review. XXXX asked spoc if faxed QWR/RFI documents containing email and court order removing attorney of record was received. Specialist advised correspondence was received but could not view attachment. Borrower advised spoc of faxed contents to be noted during transaction. XXXX advised timeline to receive all requested documents was within XXXX days of request. 

On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX  Rushmore Servicing XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Modification/Partial Claim was approved although it was not requested and there is no record of SFB Review. XXXX advised loss mitigation spoc XXXX XXXX was not available. Borrower requested to speak to spocs Manager. Specialist advised would connect to XXXX  Manager XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX advised there were gaps in processing XXXX  applications, not sure why waterfall was not being followed, and would loop in his XXXX and XXXX XXXX via email. Borrower advised would be filing complaint with CFPB to get assistance and would include exchange in complaint. 


.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation