Consumer complaint received 2025-09-09 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Other type of mortgage
Issue: Closing on a mortgage — Changes in loan terms during or after closing
Company: Ocwen Financial Corporation
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
This is to follow up to a previous complaint # XXXX, with supporting documents if allowed to attach said documents. 
See below- Subject : Follow-up to Complaint ID # XXXX PHH Mortgage Misrepresentation of Shared Appreciation Modification Dear CFPB Ombudsman, I am submitting additional documentation in support of my original complaint against PHH Mortgage regarding deceptive servicing and an invalid Shared Appreciation Modification ( SAM ).

1. Certified No Record XXXX XXXX XXXX On XX/XX/XXXX, I obtained a Certified No Record Statement from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX confirming that no SAM, modification, or lien was ever recorded between XXXX for my property ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX, XXXX XXXX ). This directly refutes PHH Mortgages repeated claims that my account was modified under a Shared Appreciation Modification in XXXX. If such an agreement existed and was legally binding, it would have been recorded in the countys official records. 
2. XXXX, New York Address Discrepancy The copy of the alleged XXXX SAM provided by PHH shows my name but lists an address in XXXX, New York ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX ) a location with which I have no connection. I have lived in California throughout this period. This raises serious concerns about the authenticity and enforceability of the document presented by PHH as evidence. 
3. Lack of Notarization and Improper Execution The XXXX SAM was never properly notarized, and I question its authenticity. Unlike my prior XXXX modification, which was duly signed and notarized in XXXX XXXX XXXX and recorded, the SAM document later shows a Texas notarization stamp dated two months after the purported signature date. I was never in Texas, nor did I authorize any such notarization. These discrepancies strongly suggest improper execution and render the document legally questionable, if not void.

4. Misrepresentation in Servicer Responses Despite my repeated information requests, PHH has continued to state that my loan was modified under a SAM agreement in XXXX. This conflicts with the countys certified records, which prove no such SAM was ever recorded, and with the lack of proper notarization or consistent address information on the alleged SAM.

________________________________________ Conclusion Based on the above evidence, I believe PHH Mortgage has misrepresented the existence and enforceability of a Shared Appreciation Modification. I respectfully request the CFPB to require PHH to : 1. Provide verified, recorded documentation supporting any SAM claim ( which county records show does not exist ). 
2. Explain why an agreement with an unrelated New York address and no contemporaneous notarization has been presented as binding.

3. Cease all references to, or enforcement of, a SAM on my loan. 
Thank you for your continued attention to this matter. I am including copies of the Certified No Record Statement from XXXX XXXX XXXX and the alleged SAM document with the XXXX, NY address and missing notarization as attachments. 
Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX Loan No. XXXX Phone : XXXX Email : XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation