Consumer complaint received 2017-05-02 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — 
Company: Specialized Loan Servicing Holdings LLC
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
In early  XXXX , I applied to  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX , the mortgage servicer at the time, for mortgage relief thru a loan modification to save home. I submitted a full and complete loan modification package to  XXXX  for review.     On or about   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  ,  XXXX  thru its foreclosure trustee law firm,  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX , file a Notice of Default against the property while I was fully engaged in a loan modification review with  XXXX . I called  XXXX  in early  XXXX  to inform them that they were violating the California HBOR law by filing the NOD during the loan modification process and they ignored my request to retract the filing. This is a violation of HBOR and HAMP.     On or   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  , the mortgage loan servicing transferred from  XXXX  to SLS ( see letter enclosed ).   As a result,  XXXX  stopped reviewing my loan modification request and SLS forced me to submit an entirely new loan modification package for their own review because they were not using anything sent to  XXXX  for the review.     The loan modification review lasted several months but SLS ultimately denied for an unjustified reason even after I contested and challenged it thru an appeal. SLS failed to definitely provide a justifiable reason under the HAMP program or internal program. In fact, SLS grossly miscalculated my monthly income which was their basis of denying the loan modification.     On or about late  XXXX  of  XXXX , SLS denied my loan modification request.     On or about  XXXX  of  XXXX , I appealed the decision and requested a Second Independent Review which was then also denied by SLS in  XXXX  of  XXXX  . ( See  letters enclosed  )  As a result, the only option they offered was the Short Sale as the Foreclosure Alternative. So I accepted it not knowing if the SLS denial was justified under the HAMP/ MHA  or  HBOR  XXXX              I exercised my right to Short Sale under the Foreclosure Alternatives and the mortgage servicer SLS Approved my request for the Short Sale Option under the Governments Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives Program on or about   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  . I have attached a copy of the request package and  HAFA Letter  received.     In t he HAFA letter, SLS outl ined my responsibilities as the Seller as well as the actions that SLS was to carry out. Specifically, it stated under Servicer Responsibilities that SLS was to postpone any foreclosure sale pending during the transactional period. The section states as follows : ( Short Sale Program Servicer Responsibilities ) Postponement of Foreclosure Sale. We will postpone any foreclosure sale until the expiration of the 120 day marketing period plus any extensions that we  may  grant in writing, or until the closing date of an approved short sale, whichever is later. Please note that we  may  still initiate foreclosure or continue with existing foreclosure proceedings as permitted by the mortgage documents or applicable law during this period.     On or about   XXXX   XXXX  , SLS received and began processing a purchase offer from a Buyer named  XXXX   XXXX . I have attached a copy of the fully executed offer package.     On or about   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  ,  SLS thru it s foreclosure trustee law firm,  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX , file a Notice of Default against the property while I was fully engaged in a HAFA Short Sale review with SLS. This is a violation of  HBOR and HAFA.      On   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  , after several months of processing and reviewing the short sale package -SLS issued an approval of the purchase offer accepted by me the Seller and Buyer  XXXX   XXXX  as evidenced in an official Approval Letter issued by SLS . ( See Attached ) In t hat short sale approval letter there was no required to have any of the parties sign to acknowledge. In fact, it also stated that the closing date had to be   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   which was less than the 30 days as stipulated in the original offer terms in the purchase agreement dated  XX/XX/XXXX   ( See p urchase offer ).     The Buyer  XXXX   XXXX  could not get his mortgage broker to secure the purchase loan within the expedited time frame as demanded by SLS ( 26 calendar days ). So I informed SLS that the Buyer needed more time which is reasonable given the normal transaction time is 30 to 45 days. Even SLSs own  HAFA Matrix  states that the  Buyer  should have 45 days to close escrow ( see enclosed  Matrix ).      The Buyers offer stipulated 30 days but SLS did not grant or honor the time. There were several calls made to SLS and the foreclosure trustee to request more time and to postpone the sale which were all denied by both parties.     So on   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  ,  SLS thru  its foreclosure trustee,  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  held the sale and the property reverted back to  SLS  as a banked owned property.     The legal issues at hand,  1 )   XXXX  and SLS as a mortgage servicers did not have the legal right to collect on said mortgage and conducted the foreclosure sale? , 2  )   XXXX   as a mortgage servicer illegally started the foreclosure process by filing a Notice of Default while engaged in a loan modification review and then SLS illegally filed a Notice of Trustee Sale while engaged in a short sales in direct violation of HBOR and HAFA.  XXXX  and  SLS  as mortgage servicers never once stopped the foreclosure process in accordance to California law and the rules of engagement under HAMP and HAFA.         This foreclosure sale is ILLEGAL and in violation of HBOR Law with respect to Dual Tracking since SLS thru its Foreclosure  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  wrongfully persisted with the foreclosure process while SLS was directly engaged with me for the short sale review and continued all the way thru the short sale approval in  XXXX  of  XXXX  as well as thru  XXXX  while in escrow.     This is a clearly an illegal act and the very essence of the meaning of dual tracking under the HBOR. Therefore, it is imperative that both SLS and  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  rescind the wrongful foreclosure sale.     In addition, the illegal foreclosure sale is in direct violation of California Foreclosure Civil Law California  Civil Code Section 2924g  specifically because the Notice  of Trustee Sale  recorded on    XXXX   XXXX   XXXX    in  th  e County  of  XXXX   XXXX  expired on    XXXX   XXXX   XXXX    at midnight. Civil law states that the recorded NOTS is only standing for a maximum of  365  calendar days. The foreclosure sale date was officially   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   which is technically 385 days after the recordation of said  NOTS. Th e law requires states : (  2  ) In the event that the sale proceedings are postponed for a period or periods totaling more than 365 days, the scheduling of any further sale proceedings shall be preceded by giving a new notice of sale in the manner prescribed in  Section 2924f . New fees incurred for the new notice of sale shall not exceed the amounts specified in Sections  2924c  and 2924d, and shall not exceed reasonable costs that are necessary to comply with this paragraph.     The short sale transaction remains opened with escrow is a current short sale in escrow that is pending however SLS and Trustee have not allowed it to close for an unjustified reason.

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