Consumer complaint received 2017-04-19 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional fixed mortgage
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure — 
Company: Franklin Credit Management Corporation
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
Franklin Credit is  COMMITTING FRAUD AGAINST A BORROWER AND THE INVESTOR THAT THEY ARE SERVICING A MORTGAGE ON BEHA LF OF. Franklin credit fil ed an NOD against a borrower on  X/XX/17    and has ALREADY SET AN AUCTION DATE ON THE PROPERTY AS OF  X/XX/17   . By C A state law an A UCTION CAN NOT BE SET UNTIL 90 DAYS HAS PASSED FROM THE NOD FILING. I WAS INFORMED OF THE AUCTION DATE BEING SET BY A REPRESENTATIVE AT FRANKLIN ON  X/XX/17   , well short of the 90 days required by CA law.   It is obvious that there is a pattern of FRAUD that FRANKLIN CREDIT commits on a regular basis as evidenced by the  XXXX  complaints in the CFPB database already.   We have been working on a loss mitigation work out ( Short Sale ) with the 2nd mortgage on a property Franklin   Credit is the servicer. Franklin  credit has been very difficult to work with since contacting them in  XXXX  about workout options.    XXXX  Credit was contacted on  X/X/17    and sent an authorization letter and payoff request. After multiple attempts to contact  XXXX     XXXX  we were n't able to speak with them until  X/XX/17    when I spoke with a representative by the name of  XXXX   XXXX . He told me that the  XXXX  was  XXXX  and the account was past due for approximately  XXXX  or 110 months of missed payments. At this point he ordered a short sale package to be emailed to me.   On  X/XX/17    a payoff was received from  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  in the amount of {$210000.00}. On this same date the " SS requirements '' package was also received from a  XXXX  XXXX  XXXX . The property was available for sale and an offer was not received until  X/XX/17    at which point the entire package was faxed and emailed to  Franklin Credit, a s they will not review incomplete packages.   The offer that was presente d to Franklin Credit is  about 20,000 above current market value of the property and from an all cash buyer.   On  X/XX/17    I followed up w ith Franklin Credit an d they confirmed receipt of the package and did n't request any additional information and stated that upper management would have an answer by Wednesday the  XXXX .  XXXX  called me this same day and said that management declined the offer and wanted an offer closer to the UPB of the mortgage. The numbers on the closing statement were re-evaluated and we were able to present a higher net which was sent via email on  X/X/17   .   On  X/X/17    another decline letter was received via email.   On  X/XX/17    Again the numbers were adjusted to meet the net Franklin requested to submit to management again,  XXXX . The settlement estimate with a letter of explanation of value and a comparative market analysis was emailed to Franklin.   On  X/XX/17    I spoke with  XXXX  twice. He had called me at  XXXX  Pacific time and said that the file was marked for auction. I questioned him about this as the NOD was filed on  X/XX/17    and 90 days had not passed per CA state law. He said that the auction was already set.   At this point,  XXXX  ordered a BPO on the property to confirm that the information we were providing was accurate and that the offer was actually in excess of current market values. The BPO was performed on  X/XX/17   .  XXXX  will not provide an amount of the BPO or the actual BPO report that was performed when it was requested.   On  X/XX/17    I tried multiple times to communicate with  XXXX   XXXX  about the offer and was just put on hold and disconnected multiple times. I also tried to email  XXXX  and  XXXX  XXXX  XXXX  without any response. After calling multiple times I received an email with another denial letter.   On  X/XX/17    I was able to speak to  XXXX . He told me that there was nothing that could be done as an auction was set for  XXXX  on the property and that management was countering the offer to  XXXX .   BY WAITING THIS LONG IT IS EVIDENT THAT  FRANKLIN CREDIT  HAD NO OTHER INTENTION THAN TO FORECLOSE ON THE PROPERTY AND DEFRAUD ALL PARTIES HOMEOWNER AND INVESTOR

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation