Consumer complaint received 2025-04-23 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — Applying for or obtaining a modification, forbearance plan, short sale, or deed-in-lieu
Company: Mr. Cooper Group Inc.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
XXXX Family Complaint Against XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  and Wells Fargo Date : XX/XX/XXXX To : XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) and Wells Fargo Bank , N.A . 
CC : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, New York Supreme Court, XXXX XXXX ________________________________________ Subject : Formal Complaint Regarding Unlawful Foreclosure Practices, Bad Faith Loss Mitigation, and Violations of Federal and State Law Dear Select Portfolio Servicing and Wells Fargo, We, XXXX and XXXX XXXX, hereby lodge this aggressive formal complaint against XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX ) and Wells Fargo for egregious misconduct in the handling of our mortgage, loss mitigation appeals, and foreclosure proceedings. Your actions demonstrate a pattern of bad faith, deceptive practices, and violations of federal and state laws, causing us significant financial and emotional XXXX We demand immediate resolution, including a stay of the foreclosure sale, full transparency on loss mitigation denials, and compensatory damages for your unlawful conduct. 
________________________________________ Factual Background XX/XX/XXXX Inquiry : We initiated an inquiry with XXXX regarding a loss mitigation appeal, available loss mitigation options, allegations of bad faith, and the foreclosure of our home in the XXXX, New York. 
XX/XX/XXXX Response : XXXX responded, promising to evaluate our complete Assistance Review Application for all loss mitigation options and to provide detailed results within 30 days, including : Details of approved programs with a minimum XXXX acceptance period. 
Names of programs evaluated but not approved, including Net Present Value ( NPV ) test results. 
Information on appealing denials. However, XXXX failed to address our appeal or provide substantive answers to our allegations of bad faith. 
XX/XX/XXXX Motion : Unbeknownst to us, XXXX legal department filed a Motion to Extend Time to Conduct the Foreclosure Sale, contradicting their claim that foreclosure was a last resort and no sale date was scheduled. 
XX/XX/XXXX Communication : We spoke with XXXX in XXXX Loan Resolution Department, who confirmed our desire to keep our home. She stated our prior application was denied for Insufficient Payment Reduction but offered an Exception Modification through the Ombudsman Office, promising details on interest rate and payment within 3-5 business days. She also advised us to secure our own insurance to replace lender-placed insurance. 
XX/XX/XXXX Denial : A different Ombudsman Office representative informed us that our request for the Exception Modification was denied without providing reasons or NPV results. The representative claimed we were only eligible for a short sale or short payment option but failed to provide written details of denied programs, despite our explicit request for such information via email. 
XX/XX/XXXX Status : As of today, XXXX has not provided : A response to our XX/XX/XXXX appeal. 
Written details of denied loss mitigation options or NPV results. 
Descriptions of approved programs ( short sale or short payment option ). A foreclosure hearing for a Motion to Extend Time to Conduct the Foreclosure Sale is scheduled for XX/XX/XXXX, at XXXX XXXX  in the New York Supreme Court, XXXX XXXX, despite XXXX ongoing failure to comply with loss mitigation obligations. 
________________________________________ Violations of Federal and State Law Your actions constitute multiple violations of federal and state laws, supported by the following facts and legal precedents : 1. Violation of RESPA ( 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ) Failure to Properly Evaluate Loss Mitigation and Provide Required Disclosures Facts : XXXX failed to provide a written response to our XX/XX/XXXX loss mitigation appeal, neglected to disclose reasons for the XX/XX/XXXX denial of the Exception Modification, and did not provide NPV results or details of evaluated programs, as promised in their XX/XX/XXXX letter. This violates RESPAs requirement to evaluate all loss mitigation options and provide written notice of denials with specific reasons within 30 days of a complete application ( 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( c ) ( 1 ), ( d ) ).

Case Law : Federal : In Moore v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 908 F.3d 1050 ( 7th Cir. 2018 ), the court held that a servicers failure to comply with RESPAs loss mitigation evaluation and notification requirements can support claims for emotional distress and financial damages, particularly when the violations cause stress related to potential home loss.

State : In Wells Fargo Bank , N.A . v. Hernandez, 2022 NY Slip Op 02576 ( 2d Dept 2022 ), the New York Appellate Division emphasized that procedural deficiencies in foreclosure actions, including failure to comply with loss mitigation obligations, warrant judicial scrutiny.

Violation Impact : SPSs non-compliance has deprived us of the opportunity to make informed decisions about our home, exacerbating our distress and financial uncertainty.

2. Bad Faith and Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Facts : XXXX contradictory actionspromising loss mitigation evaluation while simultaneously filing a Motion to Extend Time to Conduct the Foreclosure Sale on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXXdemonstrate bad faith. Additionally, offering an Exception Modification on XX/XX/XXXX, only to deny it without explanation on XX/XX/XXXX, suggests deceptive practices intended to mislead us into believing foreclosure could be avoided. 
Case Law : State : In Wells Fargo Bank , N.A . v. XXXX, XXXX NY Slip Op XXXX ( U ) ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the court recognized that equitable remedies may be invoked when there is evidence of fraud, exploitive overreaching, or unconscionable conduct by the servicer, as XXXX has demonstrated here. 
XXXX : In XXXX XXXX Wells Fargo Bank, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ), the court found that XXXX XXXX failure to offer affordable modifications and misleading communications about loss mitigation options could support claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, analogous to XXXX XXXX consumer protection laws. 
Violation Impact : SPSs bad faith has undermined our trust in the loss mitigation process and accelerated foreclosure proceedings without due process. 
XXXX. Violation of New York XXXX XXXX Improper Foreclosure Notice and Procedures Facts : XXXX failure to provide transparent loss mitigation outcomes and their covert filing of a foreclosure motion on XX/XX/XXXX, suggest non-compliance with XXXX XXXX requirement for proper notice and loss mitigation consideration before advancing foreclosure ( XXXX XXXX ). The lack of a scheduled foreclosure sale date in their XX/XX/XXXX letter, juxtaposed with the motion filed the next day, indicates deceptive intent. 
Case Law : State : In Wells Fargo Bank , N.A . v. XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ), the court scrutinized procedural irregularities in foreclosure actions, emphasizing that servicers must adhere to RPAPLs notice and loss mitigation requirements. 
State : New York courts have held that failure to comply with XXXX XXXX divests the court of jurisdiction, as noted in Wells Fargo Bank , N.A . v. Ahr ( XXXX ), where improper notice was grounds to challenge foreclosure. 
Violation Impact : XXXX  actions have prejudiced our ability to defend against foreclosure, violating our statutory protections. 
4. Violation of CFPB Regulations and Prior Consent Orders Facts : XXXX XXXX history of mortgage servicing errors, including wrongful foreclosures due to software miscalculations, is well-documented. XXXX, as Wells Fargos servicer, has continued this pattern by mishandling our loss mitigation application and failing to provide required disclosures. This conduct violates CFPB regulations and prior consent orders mandating fair servicing practices. 
Case Law/Regulatory Action : Federal : The CFPBs XXXX order against Wells Fargo required {$190.00} XXXX in refunds for wrongful foreclosures due to improper denial of modifications, highlighting a pattern of non-compliance relevant to XXXX actions here. 
Federal : In Wells Fargo Bank , N.A . XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ), the court affirmed that servicers must adhere to statutory foreclosure procedures, and deviations can justify vacating default judgments. 
Violation Impact : SPSs failure to rectify Wells Fargos systemic issues has directly harmed us through improper foreclosure advancement.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation