Consumer complaint received 2026-07-14 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — VA mortgage
Issue: Closing on a mortgage — Delays with the closing process
Company: LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC
State: CO

Complaint narrative:
RE : Formal Escalation Pattern of Servicer Misconduct, RESPA Violations, and Documented Financial Harm I am filing this complaint because the response provided by Lakeview, XXXX XXXX XXXX to CFPB XXXX XXXX, XXXX was inadequate, non-specific, and failed to address the documented pattern of RESPA violations outlined in my original complaint. I am submitting the attached escalation letter as complete documentation of the violations, financial harm, and relief requested. I do not accept the prior response as an adequate resolution of this matter. '' SECTION 1 : OPENING STATEMENT This document constitutes a formal escalation of previously submitted CFPB complaints against XXXX XXXX XXXX  and Lakeview Loan ServicingXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX It is submitted in response to the inadequate, non-specific, and in some cases factually inaccurate responses provided by both servicers to prior CFPB complaint submissions. 
Every claim in this escalation is supported by documented evidence, including recorded phone calls, written correspondence, CFPB complaint submissions, court-issued probate documents, servicer letters, and a complete timeline of events maintained throughout these proceedings. 
SECTION 2 : BACKGROUND, DISABILITY STATUS, SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST STATUS, AND COMMUNICATIONS 2.1 Personal Background and Disability Status I am the Successor-in-Interest to the estate of my stepmother, XXXX XXXX XXXX, who passed away on XX/XX/XXXX. My father, XXXX XXXX, passed away approximately six months prior, on XX/XX/XXXX. I am a Colorado resident remotely managing the affairs of a Florida estate. Throughout these proceedings, I have been recovering from XXXX with a XXXX XXXX XXXX a fact that is relevant to the nature and volume of communications I was required to manage and the standard of care I was owed as a protected borrower under federal law. Under RESPA and the CFPB 's Successor-in-Interest rules, servicers are required to communicate clearly, promptly, and accessibly with protected borrowers a standard neither servicer met. 
2.2 Successor-in-Interest Status I was established as Successor-in-Interest to this VA-backed mortgage following the completion of full probate proceedings in the state of Florida. Letters of Administration were issued by the court on XX/XX/XXXX, and submitted to both servicers. Despite this, both servicers repeatedly failed to promptly and properly recognize my legal status, resulting in significant delays, redundant document requests, and the continued pursuit of foreclosure proceedings against the estate. This failure to recognize my Successor-in-Interest status is itself a documented RESPA violation and forms the foundation of every subsequent failure outlined in this escalation. 
XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  Three calls to XXXX XXXX to try to get help with mortgage, first missed payment XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX First contact was made with XXXX XXXX to notify them of the death and begin the loss mitigation process XX/XX/XXXX -- - Letters of Administration issued by Florida probate court ; submitted to XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  First of XXXX total document submission cycles begins ; XXXX XXXX begins a pattern of requesting documents already submitted XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXAll-cash short sale offer # XXXX exists but can not be submitted ; XXXX XXXX simultaneously requires an active loan modification and hardship affidavit process, blocking formal short sale submission XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  -All-cash short sale offers # XXXX through # XXXX were presented to XXXX XXXX ; offers were either rejected outright XXXX buyers abandoned the transaction due to XXXX XXXX 's failure to make timely decisions Throughout XXXXXXXX XXXX  -When borrowers raise concerns about delays and rejections, XXXX XXXX representatives respond : " You just do not understand how the process works '' a statement that is factually inverted and constitutes a documented misrepresentation under 12 CFR 1024.38 ( b ) ( 2 ) XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Served foreclosure lawsuit at our residence at the correct apartment number in Colorado XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I responded to the foreclosure demand ; my husband did not since her has no legal obligations or interest XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Handed in Notarized deed-in-lieu XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXAll-cash short sale offers # XXXX presented ; this offer is maintained through closing XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX  - Deed-in-lieu rejected for short-sale offers XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXJudicial default entered into " Unknown Spouse Of '' a non-existent party with no legal standing in these proceedings ; neither servicer acknowledges nor corrects this error XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX  -Foreclosure mediation held ; Lakeview 's own foreclosure attorney arrives uninformed of the deed-in-lieu attempt, prior sale attempts, and the active all-cash short sale offer XXXX the table since XX/XX/XXXX XXXX and a half months prior ; borrower presents complete case timeline to educate servicer 's own legal counsel XX/XX/XXXX -- -Conditional short sale approval letter issued by Lakeview just 20 days after mediation, where their own attorney knew nothing about the case XX/XX/XXXX -- -HOA subordinate lien negotiations are ongoing ; Lakeview fails to allocate funds necessary to satisfy the conditions of its own approval letter XX/XX/XXXX -- - Impossible 15-day closing deadline imposed; conditions include subordinate lien releases for which {$0.00} has been allocated 2.3 Communications Record I contacted XXXX XXXX the day after my stepmother passed away. From that point forward, I maintained consistent, documented communication with both servicers across phone calls, written correspondence, and CFPB complaint submissions. The volume and consistency of this communication record demonstrate that every delay and failure in this process occurred despite not because of any lack of effort or follow-through on my part. Many of these calls were recorded by me and reflect a pattern of dismissive, inaccurate, and contradictory responses from servicer representatives. 
SECTION 3 : TIMELINE OF SERVICER MISCONDUCT The following timeline documents the pattern of delays, redundant requests, impossible conditions, and failures of internal communication that characterize the conduct of both servicers throughout these proceedings : SECTION 4 : INADEQUACY OF RESPONSES AND SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS 4.1 Redundant Document Requests ( RESPA 12 CFR 1024.41 ) Over the course of these proceedings, I submitted the same documents to XXXX XXXX on eight separate occasions. Each time, XXXX XXXX either claimed documents were not received, requested additional documents not previously identified, or restarted the review process without explanation. This pattern was compounded by two servicing transfers starting on XX/XX/XXXX from XXXX XXXX to Lakeview, and from Lakeview to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  during which loan files were either not transferred completely or not reviewed by incoming servicers, resulting in the document submission cycle being restarted each time. Under RESPA 12 CFR 1024.41, a servicer may not request the same documents or information previously submitted by a borrower. XXXX XXXX 's pattern of redundant requests constitutes a clear and repeated violation of this provision. 
4.2 Failure to Recognize Successor-in-Interest Status ( RESPA 12 CFR 1024.38 ) Despite the submission of court-issued Letters of Administration establishing my legal status as Successor-in-Interest, both servicers repeatedly failed to promptly and properly recognize this status. This failure caused direct delays in loss mitigation processing and resulted in foreclosure proceedings being pursued against an estate whose legal representative had been clearly identified and documented. Most egregiously, on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  verbally confirmed my Successor-in-Interest status and denied that same status in writing on the same day. This direct contradiction is preserved in the communications record and constitutes a standalone violation of 12 CFR 1024.38. 
4.3 Dual Tracking Violation ( RESPA 12 CFR 1024.41 ( f ) ) Both servicers simultaneously pursued foreclosure proceedings while an active, approved short sale transaction was in progress. This constitutes dual tracking in direct violation of RESPA 12 CFR 1024.41 ( f ), which prohibits a servicer from moving forward with foreclosure while a complete loss mitigation application is pending. The XX/XX/XXXX, conditional approval with an impossible 15-day deadline and {$0.00} allocated for subordinate lien releases further strengthens this finding a conditional approval designed to fail does not satisfy the dual-tracking prohibition. Furthermore, following the XX/XX/XXXX, closing after payoff funds had been received a Notice of Foreclosure Sale bearing my name and property address was published in the Business Observer on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  These publications occurred because neither the servicer nor the foreclosure attorney filed the required cancellation with the court in a timely manner, constituting a continuation of dual-tracking conduct even after the loss mitigation transaction had successfully closed. 
4.4 Failure to Maintain Accurate Internal Records and Communicate with Legal Counsel ( RESPA 12 CFR 1024.38 / 12 CFR 1024.40 ) The servicing transfer from XXXX XXXX to Lakeview Loan Servicing occurred while an active short sale transaction was in progress. This transfer resulted in a complete loss of institutional knowledge regarding the history of the loan, the loss mitigation proceedings, and the active short sale offer. 
The full extent of this failure was revealed at the foreclosure mediation on XX/XX/XXXX. At that mediation, Lakeview 's own foreclosure attorney was unaware of the deed-in-lieu attempt, prior efforts to sell the estate, and the all-cash short-sale offer that had been actively maintained since XX/XX/XXXX. It was only through my presentation of the complete case timeline at mediation that Lakeview 's legal counsel became informed of the history of this loan placing an extraordinary and wholly inappropriate burden on a Successor-in-Interest who was simultaneously recovering from XXXX with a XXXX XXXX XXXX and managing a Florida estate remotely from Colorado. Twenty days after that mediation on XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  a conditional short sale approval was issued. 
Under RESPA 12 CFR 1024.40, servicers are required to maintain continuity of contact and ensure that loss mitigation information is transferred completely and accurately during a servicing transfer. Under RESPA 12 CFR 1024.38, servicers are required to maintain accurate and accessible records and to provide personnel including legal counsel with access to all relevant information. Neither requirement was met. This failure was again repeated when Lakeview transferred servicing to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX effective XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  again while an active, approved short sale transaction was in progress requiring yet another round of re-establishment of Successor-in-Interest status and loss mitigation history with an incoming servicer. 
4.5 Systematic Rejection of All-Cash Short Sale Offers ( RESPA 12 CFR 1024.41 ) The XX/XX/XXXX, all-cash offer that ultimately closed on XX/XX/XXXX, was not the first all-cash short-sale offer presented; as a minimum, the seventh. An all-cash offer existed as early as XX/XX/XXXXXXXX   but could not be formally submitted because XXXX XXXX simultaneously required the borrower to pursue a loan modification and hardship affidavit process blocking one loss mitigation path while mandating another. This simultaneous requirement placed the borrower in an impossible position and constitutes a dual-tracking violation under 12 CFR 1024.41 ( f ) independent of the foreclosure dual-tracking violation documented in Section 4.3. At least five additional all-cash short sale offers were subsequently presented. XXXX XXXX either rejected them outright or delayed decisions so long that buyers abandoned the transaction entirely. 
When the borrower raised concerns about these repeated rejections and delays, XXXX XXXX 's response was : " You just do not understand how the process works. '' This response is not only dismissive and condescending it is factually inverted. The borrower understood the process precisely. She had at minimum seven all-cash buyers ready to close. It was the servicer whose delays, rejections, and impossible conditions destroyed six viable all-cash transactions before a seventh buyer extraordinary in their patience and commitment held on for eight months to finally reach closing. Each abandoned transaction represents not only a lost opportunity to resolve the estate but additional months of accruing mortgage arrears, HOA arrears, and foreclosure-related costs all of which were the direct and foreseeable consequence of XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX failure to act on viable offers in a timely manner. 
This statement also constitutes a violation of 12 CFR 1024.38 ( b ) ( 2 ), which requires servicers to provide accurate information to borrowers in a timely manner. Telling a borrower she does not understand a process that she understood better than the servicer 's own attorney is a documented misrepresentation that caused direct harm it discouraged the borrower from escalating legitimate concerns at a time when earlier escalation might have preserved one or more of the six lost all-cash transactions.

4.6 Impossible Closing Conditions ( RESPA 12 CFR 1024.41 ( f ) ) The XX/XX/XXXX, conditional approval letter issued by Lakeview imposed a closing deadline of XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  just 15 days while simultaneously requiring subordinate lien releases for which {$0.00} had been allocated. Specifically, the HOA subordinate lien which ultimately required negotiation and settlement was identified as a required condition of closing with no funding allocated and no servicer representative assigned to facilitate its resolution. These conditions were mathematically and legally impossible to satisfy within the timeframe given. The practical effect of this approval was to create the appearance of loss mitigation compliance while ensuring the transaction could not close a pattern that mirrors the XX/XX/XXXXXXXX   loan modification blockage documented in Section 4.5 and further supports a finding of bad faith loss mitigation conduct. This pattern of issuing approvals with impossible conditions is consistent with the broader pattern of servicer conduct documented throughout these proceedings. 
4.7 Judicial Default Against Non-Existent Party ( RESPA 12 CFR 1024.38 ( b ) ( 1 ) ) On XX/XX/XXXX, a judicial default was entered against " Unknown Spouse Of '' a non-existent party with no legal standing in these proceedings. Neither XXXX XXXX nor Lakeview Loan Servicing acknowledged or corrected this error in their CFPB complaint responses. This error reflects the broader failure of both servicers to maintain accurate records and exercise basic due diligence in their legal proceedings against this estate. Servicers are required under 12 CFR 1024.38 ( b ) ( 1 ) to maintain accurate and accessible records of the identity of parties with legal standing. Pursuing judicial action against a non-existent party while simultaneously failing to recognize the documented Successor-in-Interest is a direct and irreconcilable contradiction. This same failure of due diligence in maintaining accurate party records contributed directly to the XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, foreclosure publications in which a Notice of Foreclosure Sale bearing my name and property address was published after the short sale had already closed, because the foreclosure attorney failed to file the Motion to Cancel in a timely manner following the XX/XX/XXXX, closing. 
On XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, foreclosure publications directly caused unsolicited investor contact, public exposure of my personal information, and emotional distress all occurring AFTER a successful closing that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX had approved on XX/XX/XXXX. 

SECTION 5 : SPECIFIC REQUESTS AND RELIEF SOUGHT 5.1 Formal Investigation of Both Servicers I request a formal investigation into the conduct of both XXXX XXXX XXXX  and Lakeview Loan ServicingXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX specifically regarding : The pattern of redundant document requests in violation of RESPA 12 CFR 1024.41 The failure to acknowledge and process court-issued Letters of Administration The simultaneous pursuit of foreclosure while an approved short sale was active, in violation of RESPA 12 CFR 1024.41 ( f ) The servicing transfer that occurred during an active, approved short sale transaction The complete failure of internal communication between the servicing and legal departments The systematic rejection and delay of seven all-cash short sale offers The issuance of a conditional approval with mathematically impossible closing conditions The judicial default entered against a non-existent party never acknowledged or corrected The publication of a Notice of Foreclosure Sale bearing the Successor-in-Interest 's name and property address on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX two and nine days after the short sale closed on XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  was caused by the failure to file a timely Motion to Cancel following XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX approval of the short sale to proceed The verbal confirmation of Successor-in-Interest status by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  on XX/XX/XXXX, followed by a written denial of that same status in writing on the same day a direct contradiction preserved in the communications record- and XX/XX/XXXX, finally being able to speak to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX representatives a four-day delay and direct contradiction in the communications record 5.2 Formal Finding of RESPA Violations I request that the CFPB make a formal finding that both servicers violated RESPA, specifically : LOSS AMOUNT HOA arrears accumulated during delays {$20000.00} Mortgage arrears accumulated during delays {$20000.00} 401 ( k ) gross distribution forced by financial hardship {$9100.00} Federal tax withholding ( {$1800.00} ) State tax withholding ( {$910.00} ) Early withdrawal penalty ( Form 1040 Line 23 ) ( {$1100.00} ) 401 ( k ) net received {$5100.00} Permanent loss to taxes and penalties alone {$3900.00} Tax return spent on estate-related expenses {$1500.00} Personal electricity payments 18 months {$1200.00} Storage and relocation costs {$1200.00} Credits and fees waived by realtor, title, HOA attorney {$1100.00} ( Realtor ) ( The others I do not have the actual amount yet, but I have documentation they waived their fees and such ) Total documented to date {$63000.00} + pending items 12 CFR 1024.41 Loss mitigation procedures, including redundant document requests and systematic rejection of seven all-cash short sale offers 12 CFR 1024.41 ( f ) Dual tracking prohibition, including pursuit of foreclosure while an approved short sale was active and simultaneous requirement of loan modification and short sale processes 12 CFR 1024.40 Continuity of contact requirements during servicing transfer, including complete loss of institutional knowledge transferred to Lakeview and subsequently to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 12 CFR 1024.38 Failure to recognize Successor-in-Interest status and maintain accurate records 12 CFR 1024.38 ( b ) ( 1 ) Failure to maintain accurate records of parties with legal standing, including pursuit of judicial default against a non-existent party 12 CFR 1024.38 ( b ) ( 2 ) Failure to provide accurate information to borrower, including the documented misrepresentation " You just do not understand how the process works '' 12 CFR 1024.36 Failure to respond to information requests related to court-issued probate documents 12 CFR 1024.33 Failure to provide timely and accurate notices in connection with two servicing transfers that occurred while active loss mitigation applications were pending, including failure to transfer complete loan files to successor servicers 5.3 Accountability for Financial Harm I request that the CFPB document and acknowledge the following quantifiable financial harm caused directly by servicer misconduct : These losses were not the result of borrower inaction. They were the direct and foreseeable result of servicer delays, redundant document requests, impossible closing conditions, and a catastrophic failure of internal communication. Had either servicer acted on any one of the seven all-cash short sale offers in a timely manner, the majority of these losses would not have occurred the HOA arrears, mortgage arrears, 401 ( k ) liquidation, and personal electricity payments all accumulated during months and years of preventable delay. The 401 ( k ) distribution represents not only the net amount received but a permanent, irreversible loss of {$3900.00} to taxes and penalties alone not including the lost future compound growth of those retirement funds. 
5.4 Correction of the Judicial Default Error I request that the CFPB formally note and refer for correction the judicial default entered on XX/XX/XXXX, against " Unknown Spouse Of '' a non-existent party with no legal standing in these proceedings. This error was never acknowledged or corrected by either servicer in their CFPB responses. The failure to correct this error is itself significant it demonstrates that neither servicer reviewed the court record with sufficient care to identify a party that does not exist, while simultaneously failing to recognize the Successor-in-Interest who does. This is not a clerical oversight. It is a systemic failure of due diligence. 
5.5 Formal Response to This Escalation I request that the CFPB require both XXXX XXXX XXXX  and Lakeview Loan ServicingXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to provide a specific, point-by-point written response to each violation documented in Sections 3 and 4 of this escalation. General responses that fail to address the documented timeline will not be considered adequate. I further request that the CFPB establish and enforce a specific response deadline for both servicers, and that any response received be evaluated against the documented evidence submitted with this escalation rather than accepted at face value. 
5.6 Recognition of Successor-in-Interest Status I request that the CFPB formally note the repeated failures of both servicers to promptly and properly recognize my Successor-in-Interest status as established under RESPA 12 CFR 1024.38, and that this pattern be included in any enforcement action or supervisory findings against either servicer. Particular attention is requested regarding XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, verbal confirmation of Successor-in-Interest status, followed by written denial of that same status in writing on the same day a contradiction that is preserved in the communications record and represents one of the most direct violations of 12 CFR 1024.38 documented in these proceedings. 
XXXX Referral for Further Action Given the severity, duration, and documented pattern of misconduct outlined in this escalation, I respectfully request that the CFPB consider referral of this matter to : The Florida XXXX XXXX XXXX Regulation The XXXX Department XXXX XXXX XXXX given the XXXX nature of this mortgage The Federal Housing XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the pattern of conduct documented herein suggests systemic compliance failures that XXXX affect other borrowers beyond this estate Any other regulatory body with jurisdiction over the conduct documented herein SECTION XXXX : CLOSING STATEMENT I submit this escalation in good faith and with the full weight of documented evidence supporting every claim made herein. I am not an attorney. I am a wife, a grandmother who cares for her grandchildren, a XXXX to a VA-backed mortgage, a XXXX recovering from XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX surgeries, and a borrower who did everything right and was failed at every turn by the very servicers entrusted with the legal and ethical obligation to work with me in good faith. 
I called the day after my stepmother passed. She had been widowed herself just XXXX months prior when my father passed away. I completed full probate proceedings. I submitted every document requested some of them XXXX times. I held an all-cash buyer together for XXXX months. I informed Lakeview 's own foreclosure attorney of the history of his own case. I did all of this while moving my family from a house to a hotel to an apartment, while caring for my grandchildren, and while recovering from a XXXX and my surgeries. I did all of this without legal representation, without institutional support, and without a single servicer representative who took responsibility for what was happening to this estate. 
The closing occurred on XX/XX/XXXX. The harm, however, does not end there. The financial losses are real, documented, and ongoing. The accountability I am seeking is not punitive it is necessary. It is necessary for the integrity of the loss mitigation process. It is necessary for the protection of XXXX who will face these same servicers after their own losses. And it is necessary because the institutions entrusted with federal loan programs must be held to the standard those programs require. For me, and for every other borrower who has faced or will face this same pattern of misconduct. 
I wish to bring to the CFPB 's attention that the conduct documented in this escalation is not unprecedented for this servicer. In XX/XX/XXXX, the CFPB ordered XXXX Mortgage which subsequently rebranded to XXXX XXXX and now operates as Champion Mortgage to pay {$91.00} XXXX in penalties and restitution for mortgage servicing violations including failure to properly handle loss mitigation applications, dual tracking violations, improper foreclosure practices, and failure to maintain accurate borrower records. These are precisely the violations documented throughout this escalation. The fact that these violations recurred against a grieving XXXX managing a VA-backed estate while recovering XXXX XXXX with a XXXX XXXX XXXX raises serious questions about whether the XXXX settlement produced meaningful and lasting change in this servicer 's conduct. I respectfully request that the CFPB consider this pattern of repeat violations in determining the appropriate regulatory response to this escalation. 
I respectfully request a formal, specific, and timely response to each request outlined in Section XXXX of this escalation. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX * * I have all the documentation, but I request all of the recorded communications with XXXX XXXX and XXXX & XXXX Bank XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX 2026

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