Consumer complaint received 2026-04-23 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home 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: Rocket Mortgage, LLC
State: NJ

Complaint narrative:
* * Complaint Against : Rocket Mortgage XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX * * * * Property : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, NJ * * * * Summary of Issue : * * The servicer has provided inconsistent and contradictory information regarding loss mitigation options, failed to provide clear and actionable instructions, and is continuing foreclosure activity while a loss mitigation review is ongoing. These actions have prevented me from meaningfully pursuing available alternatives. -- - * * Key Issues : * * * * 1. Conflicting Statements Regarding Short Sale * * On XX/XX/year>, I received an Evaluation Notice indicating approval for liquidation options, including a short sale. The servicer has since stated that there is no short sale review open at this time, without explaining : * When or why the short sale process was closed * Whether it was denied or withdrawn * Why I was not notified 1A. Foreclosure Activity Initiated After Loss Mitigation Approval On XX/XX/year>, I was notified that I had been approved for liquidation options, including a short sale and deed in lieu. Shortly thereafter, foreclosure activity continued and a Sheriffs Sale was scheduled ( initially XX/XX/year>, later rescheduled to XX/XX/year> at my request to the sheriff ). As reflected in my XX/XX/year> correspondence to foreclosure counsel, I raised this issue at the time and requested that the sale be suspended pending implementation of the approved loss mitigation option. Despite this, foreclosure activity was not halted, and no clear explanation was provided as to : Why foreclosure proceeded after loss mitigation approval Whether the approved option was ever properly implemented, reviewed, or closed How these actions are consistent with loss mitigation requirements This sequence of events has never been substantively addressed in any response. -- - * * 2. Introduction of New Conditions Without Explanation * * The servicer now claims that judgments on title must be resolved before a short sale can proceed. However, they have not : * Identified the specific liens or judgments * Explained how these issues prevent a short sale review -- - XXXX XXXX XXXX. Unsolicited Reopening of Loss Mitigation Application * * The servicer opened a new loss mitigation ( modification ) review on XX/XX/year> without any request from me. This occurred after prior communications focused on liquidation options, including a short sale. The servicer did not explain : * Why a new application was opened * Whether this replaced or terminated the prior short sale review * What specific action is required from me -- - XXXX XXXX XXXX. Foreclosure Activity While Loss Mitigation Is Pending * * A sheriffs sale is currently scheduled for XX/XX/year>. The servicer has reopened a loss mitigation review but has not clarified : * Whether my application is considered complete or incomplete * What specific documents are required * What deadlines apply By reopening the review without providing clear guidance and while maintaining an active foreclosure sale date, the servicer is creating a situation in which I may be unable to timely submit a complete application and obtain the protections provided under 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( g ). The servicer continues to assert that foreclosure is proper while failing to explain how it is complying with loss mitigation requirements. -- - XXXX XXXX XXXX. Failure to Provide Clear Process or Next Steps * * Despite multiple communications, the servicer has not provided : * Clear instructions to proceed with any specific loss mitigation option * A consistent point of contact * A clear explanation of the current status of my file XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Failure to Address Prior Complaints * * The servicer has responded by stating that my concerns are duplicative, while continuing to avoid answering the core issues outlined above. -- - XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX and Lack of Clarity Regarding Alleged Obligations * * The servicer acknowledges that my personal liability was XXXX in XXXX. They participated in the XXXX. However, they continue to reference judgments and amounts without clearly explaining : * The specific nature and status of those items * How they impact loss mitigation review No itemization or supporting documentation has been provided. -- - * * Requested Resolution : * * I am requesting that the servicer : 1. Clarify in writing the status of the short sale option, including whether it was closed or denied and why 2. Provide a complete and itemized explanation of any alleged title issues 3. Confirm whether my loss mitigation application is complete or identify all required documents and deadlines 4. Confirm whether the XX/XX/year> foreclosure sale will proceed if a complete application is submitted 5. Provide a clear process and a single point of contact responsible for my file -- - * * Supporting Documents : * * * XX/XX/year> Evaluation Notice * XX/XX/year> Response Letter * Prior correspondence

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation