Consumer complaint received 2026-01-10 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Escrow, taxes, or insurance
Company: Community Loan Servicing, LLC (formerly known as Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC)
State: MO

Complaint narrative:
CONSUMER PROTECTION BUREAU SILVER HILL CAPITAL ( LOAN SERVICING ) /COMMUNITY ( LOAN SERVICING ) /BAYVIEW ( LOAN SERVICING ) Pursuant to Bayview ( loan servicing ), community ( loan servicing ) LLC , and silver hill capital LLC ( loan servicing ) response of XX/XX/XXXX, to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on behalf of XXXX and XXXX 's XXXX ( XXXX ) loan number XXXX regulatory case number : XXXX. 
REQUEST FOR ESCALATED REVIEW CFPB Regulatory Case No. : XXXX XXXX Loan No. : XXXX Borrowers : XXXX & XXXX XXXX To the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau : I respectfully request escalated supervisory review due to the servicers continued pattern of non responsive submissions, misrepresentation of material facts, and refusal to provide documentation directly requested by both the CFPB and the borrower. The servicers XX/XX/XXXX response again fails to address the central issue : the unauthorized seizure and diversion of fiduciary escrow funds in direct contradiction to the executed settlement agreement that governed the final payoff of the loan. 
The servicers repeated reliance on irrelevant documents, selective omission of governing terms, and refusal to produce required records raises significant concerns under federal supervisory standards, including potential unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices ( UDAAP ).

1. The Servicer Continues to Ignore the Governing Settlement Agreement The servicers XX/XX/XXXX response cites Section 1.4 of the XXXX mortgage as justification for seizing escrow funds. This is a deliberate misdirection. 
The controlling document is the executed settlement agreement, which : Established a final payoff amount of {$880000.00} Was paid in full on XX/XX/XXXX Was accepted by the servicer Resulted in a recorded satisfaction The servicer has never produced any clause in the settlement agreement authorizing seizure of escrow funds. Instead, they continue to rely on a XXXX mortgage that was superseded by the settlement unless expressly preserved which it was not. 
This is a material omission and a misrepresentation of the governing contract. 
2. The Servicers Business Purpose Loan Argument Is a XXXX XXXX The servicer repeatedly asserts that the loan is exempt from RESPA and TILA because it was originated as a business purpose loan. This argument is legally irrelevant to the issue at hand. 
The borrower is an individual, and the misconduct involves : Unauthorized diversion of fiduciary escrow funds Misrepresentation of payoff terms Failure to disclose material information Post satisfaction financial claims These actions fall squarely within the CFPBs supervisory authority under UDAAP, which applies regardless of loan classification.

The servicers attempt to avoid scrutiny by invoking RESPA/TILA exemptions is a transparent effort to evade accountability. 
3. The Servicer Admits to Seizing Escrow Funds Without Notice or Authorization The XX/XX/XXXX response states : Excess escrow was used to cure that shortage This is an admission that : Escrow funds were seized Without notice Without borrower authorization Without contractual authority In contradiction to the settlement payoff The servicers justification relies entirely on a retroactive claim of a payoff shortage, which contradicts the settlement agreement and the recorded satisfaction. 
This conduct constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty under Kansas law and raises significant UDAAP concerns.

4. The Servicer Has Failed to Provide Required Documentation Despite repeated requests, the servicer has not produced : 1. Any settlement provision authorizing escrow seizure 2. Any borrower authorization 3. Any notice of intent to seize escrow funds 4. Any contractual basis for diverting tax designated funds 5. Any explanation reconciling the settlement payoff with the claimed shortage 6. Confirmation of the Reservation of Rights Agreement as the sole governing agreement Instead, the servicer continues to recycle prior statements and attach irrelevant documents. 
This pattern of non responsiveness is itself a violation of federal servicing standards. 
5. The Servicers Conduct Demonstrates a Pattern of Misrepresentation Across multiple submissions, the servicer has : Ignored the settlement agreement Ignored direct CFPB inquiries Repeatedly mischaracterized the loan payoff Provided contradictory explanations Failed to disclose material facts Attempted to justify unauthorized diversion of fiduciary funds This pattern warrants supervisory escalation and potential enforcement action.

REQUEST FOR SUPERVISORY ACTION I respectfully request that the CFPB require the servicer to produce : 1. All documents demonstrating contractual authority to seize escrow funds under the settlement agreement 2. All notices provided to the borrower regarding escrow seizure 3. All internal records supporting the claimed payoff shortage 4. A written explanation reconciling the settlement payoff with the servicers contradictory statements 5. A statement addressing fiduciary obligations under Kansas law If the servicer can not produce these documents, I request that the CFPB require : Restitution of the escrow balance Statutory interest Reimbursement of fees and costs Review for potential UDAAP violations Conclusion The servicers XX/XX/XXXX response is non responsive, misleading, and inconsistent with both the settlement agreement and federal supervisory standards. Given the admitted unauthorized diversion of fiduciary escrow funds and the servicers refusal to provide required documentation, escalated review is necessary and appropriate. 
Respectfully submitted, XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation