Consumer complaint received 2026-03-25 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — FHA mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — Applying for or obtaining a modification, forbearance plan, short sale, or deed-in-lieu
Company: Village Capital & Investment LLC
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
I am filing a formal complaint regarding the mishandling of my FHA loss mitigation process by Village Capital. The servicer improperly canceled a valid home retention option during an active trial period and is now falsely classifying the situation as borrower non-completion in order to deny further review and proceed toward foreclosure. Summary of Issue : A home retention option ( trial payment plan ) was offered with a XXXX start date. I did not refuse this option at any time. During XXXX, I was actively engaged in resolving issues through Consumer Affairs, HUD, and the State of Georgia, and was awaiting guidance and direction. I was not informed that the plan would be canceled, nor was I given any final warning or deadline clarification. Despite this, Village Capital canceled the retention option within the first week of XXXX, before : Any payment performance could be evaluated Any payment had been missed Any final notice or opportunity to perform was provided Communication from the servicer stopped entirely. After this unexplained termination, I was informed that the option is being treated as offered and not completed, making me ineligible for further loss mitigation. This is inaccurate and misleading. Key Violations : Premature Cancellation of Active Loss Mitigation The trial plan was terminated within the first week of the scheduled start month, before any reasonable opportunity to perform. False Representation of Borrower Non-Performance The servicer is treating an uncompleted process as borrower failure, despite no missed payments, no refusal, and no completed trial period. Failure of Communication and Due Process The servicer failed to provide : Clear instructions for XXXX performance Any final warning prior to cancellation Notice that cancellation was imminent Improper Denial of Reconsideration The servicer is using its own premature cancellation as justification to deny further FHA loss mitigation review. Escalation Toward Foreclosure Based on Inaccurate Records Foreclosure-related communications have been issued while this dispute remains unresolved and based on a mischaracterized servicing history. Requested Resolution : I am requesting that Village Capital be required to : Correct the servicing record to reflect that this was not borrower non-performance Reinstate eligibility for FHA home retention options Provide a valid loss mitigation path, including a trial payment plan Halt any foreclosure activity while this matter is under review Provide a full written explanation of : Why the plan was canceled within the first week of XXXX Why no notice or opportunity to perform was provided Why this is being classified as borrower failure Supporting Statement : This is not a case of borrower refusal or non-performance. This is a case where the servicer canceled a retention option before any determination of performance could occur, and is now using that action to deny relief. I am prepared to provide documentation, call logs, and correspondence supporting this claim. Based on my financial profile and eligibility, I qualify for a XXXX FHA combination modification with partial claim. I am not requesting a new application or restart of the process. I am requesting that Village Capital : Correct the servicing record to remove the false classification of non-completion Acknowledge that the prior loss mitigation termination was improper Proceed directly with evaluation and execution of the appropriate XXXX XXXX modification option Provide written confirmation of eligibility and next steps toward implementation This matter is not about reapplication or reconsideration. This is about correcting a servicing error and moving forward with the appropriate FHA retention option that I am already eligible for. Clarification Regarding Communication ( XXXX XXXX ) : At no point did I refuse the offered trial payment plan. During initial discussions, I indicated that a XXXX start would improve my ability to perform successfully. This was part of a good faith discussion regarding timing and successful completion of the plan. Any statements regarding timing or financial readiness were made in the context of ensuring successful performance, not refusal. The servicer did not : Confirm that the XXXX start date was mandatory Provide a final deadline or ultimatum Inform me that the option would be canceled if not immediately accepted Instead, the servicer ceased communication and canceled the option within the first week of XXXX without warning. This is not borrower refusal. This is a breakdown in communication followed by premature cancellation by the servicer.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation