Consumer complaint received 2025-10-17 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Payment process
Company: FirstKey Holdings, LLC
State: CT

Complaint narrative:
CONSUMER COMPLAINT Date : XX/XX/year>XXXX  Complainant Information : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CT XXXX Mortgage Servicer : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) Property Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, CT XXXX Court Case : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX District of Stamford SUMMARY OF VIOLATIONS I am filing this complaint against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for egregious and repeated violations of federal mortgage servicing laws, specifically the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 's ( CFPB ) Regulation X " dual tracking '' protections under 12 CFR 1024.41. Despite having a complete loss mitigation application on filewhich XXXX themselves acknowledged in writingthey proceeded with foreclosure in direct violation of federal law. Most alarmingly, a foreclosure sale was conducted on XX/XX/year>, one day after I filed an appeal, which should have triggered an automatic stay. 
DETAILED ACCOUNT OF VIOLATIONS 1. REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CFPB REGULATION X ( 12 CFR 1024.41 ) Throughout this foreclosure case, XXXX has systematically violated the CFPB 's dual tracking protections designed to prevent servicers from pursuing foreclosure while a borrower has a pending loss mitigation application. 
Pattern of Abuse : XXXX has opened and closed approximately nine ( 9 ) separate loss mitigation applications throughout this case This appears to be a deliberate stalling tactic to create confusion and deny me federal protections Each time they close an application, they restart the foreclosure process, only to acknowledge later that protections were in place 2. SERVICER 'S WRITTEN ADMISSION OF FORECLOSURE SUSPENSION XXXX sent me a letter stating they had received a " full loss mitigation package '' from me. Under 12 CFR 1024.41 ( g ), receipt of a complete loss mitigation application prohibits the servicer from : Moving for foreclosure judgment Conducting a foreclosure sale Obtaining a foreclosure judgment Despite their own admission that they had my complete application, XXXX continued to pursue foreclosure. 
3. ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE SALE DURING PROTECTED PERIOD Timeline of Events : XX/XX/year> : I submitted evidence to XXXX XXXX XXXX proving that XXXX acknowledged having my complete loss mitigation package and that the foreclosure was suspended under CFPB regulations. This evidence included XXXX 's own correspondence and screenshots from their servicing website confirming the suspension. 
XX/XX/year>XXXX  : XXXX XXXX denied my Motion to Stay, completely disregarding the federal law protections and XXXX 's own written admissions. This denial improperly authorized the foreclosure sale to proceed. 
XX/XX/year> : I immediately filed a Notice of Appeal of XXXX XXXX 's order. Under Connecticut law and procedure, filing an appeal should trigger an automatic stay of proceedings, particularly a foreclosure sale. 
XX/XX/year> : Despite my appeal being filed the previous day, XXXX proceeded with the foreclosure auction. This sale was conducted illegally while : A complete loss mitigation application was pending ( violating CFPB Regulation X ) An appeal was pending ( violating Connecticut appellate procedure ) Federal law explicitly prohibited the sale 4. VIOLATIONS OF MULTIPLE FEDERAL HOUSING LAWS Over the course of this case, XXXX has violated : 12 CFR 1024.41 ( g ) - Prohibition on foreclosure while complete loss mitigation application is pending 12 CFR 1024.41 ( c ) - Requirements for reviewing loss mitigation applications within required timeframes 12 CFR 1024.41 ( b ) ( 1 ) - Prohibition on making first notice or filing for foreclosure before borrower is more than 120 days delinquent 12 CFR 1024.41 ( h ) - Requirements regarding duplicative requests and proper handling of multiple applications Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA ) - Various servicing violations I have presented evidence of these violations in open court, yet they have been ignored. 
5. JUDICIAL COMPLICITY OR ERROR Most disturbing is that despite submitting clear documentary evidence of : XXXX 's written admission of a complete loss mitigation package Federal law prohibiting foreclosure during protected periods Screenshots from XXXX 's own servicing portal showing foreclosure suspension The pending appeal XXXX  XXXX and the court allowed the illegal sale to proceed. This suggests either : A fundamental misunderstanding of federal mortgage servicing law Improper disregard for federal consumer protections Possible foreclosure mill practices that prioritize speed over legality 6. CURRENT STATUS AND ONGOING HARM The case is currently under appeal. However, XXXX and the court continue to treat the XX/XX/year>XXXX  auction as valid, despite it occurring : In violation of CFPB Regulation X While an appeal was pending ( which should have stayed proceedings ) After I submitted proof of federal law violations The automatic stay that should have been triggered by my appeal was completely ignored. XXXX is attempting to complete the sale and evict me despite the multiple federal violations and pending appeal. 
EVIDENCE OF VIOLATIONS I possess documentation proving all allegations, including : Letter from XXXX acknowledging receipt of complete loss mitigation package Screenshots from XXXX servicing website showing foreclosure suspension status Court filings showing submission of this evidence on XX/XX/year>XXXX  Judge XXXX 's XX/XX/year> order denying Motion to Stay Notice of Appeal filed XX/XX/year> Documentation of the XX/XX/year> illegal auction Timeline of approximately 9 loss mitigation applications opened and improperly closed Evidence of ongoing attempts by XXXX to proceed with sale despite appeal PATTERN OF FORECLOSURE ABUSE This case demonstrates what appears to be systematic foreclosure racketeering : Servicer deliberately manipulates loss mitigation process - Opening and closing applications to create confusion and deny federal protections Servicer ignores its own admissions - Proceeds with foreclosure despite written acknowledgment of complete applications Court system fails to enforce federal law - Despite clear evidence of CFPB violations, court authorizes illegal sale Automatic stay protections ignored - Sale conducted day after appeal filed Every federal homeowner protection systematically violated - 120-day rule, dual tracking protections, appeal rights all trampled REQUESTED ACTION I respectfully request that your agency : Immediately investigate XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX for systematic violations of CFPB Regulation X Declare the XX/XX/year>XXXX  foreclosure sale VOID as it was conducted in direct violation of federal law Order XXXX  to cease all foreclosure proceedings until my loss mitigation application is properly reviewed according to federal law Impose appropriate penalties on XXXX  for repeated, willful violations of federal mortgage servicing regulations Investigate the pattern of abuse involving multiple improperly closed loss mitigation applications Coordinate with Connecticut judicial authorities regarding the court 's failure to enforce federal consumer protection laws Provide me with relief including potential damages for the violations I have suffered Investigate whether this represents a broader pattern of XXXX violating federal law in Connecticut foreclosures CONCLUSION Federal mortgage servicing laws exist specifically to prevent the abuses I have experienced. The CFPB 's dual tracking rule is designed to ensure homeowners can pursue loss mitigation without facing foreclosure. XXXX has systematically violated these protections, admitted to having my complete application in writing, and then proceeded with an illegal foreclosure sale anyway. 
Most egregiously, this sale occurred while an appeal was pending, which should have automatically stayed all proceedings. Every protection afforded to homeowners under federal law has been ignored. 
I am requesting immediate intervention to : Stop this illegal foreclosure Void the unlawful XX/XX/year>XXXX  sale Hold XXXX accountable for flagrant violations of federal law Ensure proper review of my loss mitigation application as required by law This is not a case of a servicer making a technical error. This is a pattern of deliberate violations, admitted protections being ignored, and an illegal sale conducted in defiance of federal law and pending appeal. 
I am available to provide any additional documentation or testimony needed for your investigation. 
Respectfully submitted, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CT XXXX

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