Consumer complaint received 2025-06-02 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — Foreclosure
Company: SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.
State: MD

Complaint narrative:
After years of the same issues with SPS like they send an early intervention letter for a loss mitigation program, accepts the RMA ( Request for Mortgage Assistance ) while submitting notice to the court to keep the case open to schedule a foreclose date, denies the application and proceeds with a foreclosure date.

We applied for foreclosure mediation and were granted the mediation. There was a foreclosure date for XX/XX/XXXX and the mediation was scheduled for XXXX. 
We asked SPS to cancel the foreclosure date due to the fact that the mediation was scheduled after the foreclosure date. SPS told us on XX/XX/XXXX over the phone that they were not stopping the foreclosure and that we just had to go to the mediation after. 
On XX/XX/XXXX we filed an emergency motion to the court to stop the foreclosure sale on XX/XX/XXXX due to the fact that we had a foreclosure mediation scheduled for XX/XX/XXXX. 
On XX/XX/XXXX the court emailed the SPS attorneys asking when they can have a response filed to the emergency motion we submitted. That same day SPS attorneys emailed us stating that the sale was cancelled. 
On XX/XX/XXXX The motion was denied MOOT because SPS cancelled the foreclosure sale. 
On XX/XX/XXXX SPS attorneys filed a motion to defer dismissal to place the file on a 30 day hold following mediation to review the borrowers for a repayment plan.

We were waiting for a decision and called SPS to get an update on the possible repayment plan or a modification that was talked about in the mediation and no one knew anything about the mediation or a possible repayment plan. 
On XXXX XXXX the court granted SPS a motion to defer dismissal for 90 days but it stated that if no action is taken within 90 days it will dismiss the action without prejudice. The case was not dismissed after the 90 days and the court kept granting SPS motions to defer. 
On XX/XX/XXXX we received an Early Intervention Notice for a possible loss mitigation. 
We called and asked if that had to do with the mediation and again no one knew anything. 
On XX/XX/XXXX we emailed SPS wanting to know about the early intervention letter and that we were waiting for an answer about what was discussed at the mediation for a possible repayment plan or a modification. 
On XX/XX/XXXX we sent a letter to SPS stating that we had a mediation and now no one knew anything and we had a foreclosure date active and we did not get any answer before the 30 days. 
We did not get any answers and did not hear back from anyone. 
On XX/XX/XXXX we submitted another emergency motion to stop the foreclosure sale to the court based on all the above facts and that they were violating our homeowner rights that are facing foreclosure to receive timely answer and prompt response and in our case we did not get any answers. 
On XX/XX/XXXX the court granted the emergency motion and cancelled the foreclosure sale. 
SPS misled us into thinking that they would review us for a possible repayment plan or a modification and just wanted to foreclose. We had to file 2 emergency motions to stop the foreclosure and if we did not know anything about our rights and motions they would have foreclosed twice wrongfully.

After the foreclosure sale for XX/XX/XXXX was cancelled we tried to contact SPS to see if we could get to talk to the right department to see what happened with the mediation agreement and again no one had any answers and asked if we had anything in writing. We sent them a copy of the motion to defer filed by their attorney where it stated that they were reviewing us for a possible repayment plan. Again no answer from anyone.

Based on the previous Early Intervention notice they sent on XX/XX/XXXX we told them that we were going to submit a RMA on the website. 
On XX/XX/XXXX we got an acknowledgement letter stating that they received our correspondence. 
On XX/XX/XXXX SPS attorneys filed a motion to defer dismissal for 90 days to allow time to reschedule the foreclosure. 
On XX/XX/XXXX we submitted the RMA to SPS for a loss mitigation option. 
On XX/XX/XXXX we received an acknowledgement letter stating that they received the RMA application and will evaluate our account for loss mitigation assistance. 
On XX/XX/XXXX SPS sent us a property valuation report which is part of the request for mortgage assistance.

Legal basis : Specifically, it is believed that lenders are prohibited from moving forward with foreclosure proceedings while a borrowers loss mitigation is being considered.

Maryland law, specifically, Title 10 of the Financial Institution Article ( 1024.40 ( b ) ( 1 ) and 1024.41 ( g ), prohibits lenders from pursuing foreclosure while simultaneously working on a loss mitigation application ( dual tracking ). 
On XX/XX/XXXX we called SPS to see what loss mitigation program they could offer us to keep our home and avoid foreclosure and the agent told us that we could negotiate a short payoff and that they would send a payoff quote so we can initiate the short payoff negotiation. 
On XX/XX/XXXX we sent a follow up email to SPS stating that we received the payoff quote they told us to get over the phone to start a short payoff which is an option given on the loss mitigation application. 
On XX/XX/XXXX we sent an email to SPS asking them to cancel or postponed the foreclosure sale since we were in the process of looking for a lender to do a short payoff that we discussed with the agent over the phone and that we follow up on an email and stating that no lender will do a short refinance for a short payoff if the property has a foreclosure sale date. 
On XX/XX/XXXX we filed a complaint with the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Based on the pattern from SPS and we never got to a solution we were hoping that based on the final investigation from XXXX we could finally have a mediation with SPS and try to solve this issue. 
On XX/XX/XXXX we filed an emergency motion to cancel the foreclosure sale schedule for XXXX based on the fact that we were given the option to apply for a short payoff and that we filed a complaint with XXXX and would like to give them time to complete their investigation. 
On XX/XX/XXXX we submitted a RMA to SPS based on the conversation we had with their agent on XX/XX/XXXX and selected to negotiate the payoff option for a possible short payoff. 
On XX/XX/XXXX we filed another Emergency motion to stop the foreclosure sale schedule for XX/XX/XXXX since we did not get a response for the previous one. 
On XX/XX/XXXX The secured party cancelled the scheduled sale. They did not say why they cancelled it but if it was in response to our motion to stop the sale it was based on the loss mitigation short payoff option and or the XXXX investigation to be completed. 
On XX/XX/XXXX we received another Early Intervention notice for us to apply for a possible loss mitigation program. 
On XX/XX/XXXX We received an Assistance Ineligibility Notice. Just a general notice with no information as to what we were not eligible for and no appeal option. 
Legal Basis : Specifically, it is believed that a lender sending a general denial letter for loss mitigation without stating the reason or an appeal option could be violating aspects of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures ACT ( RESPA ) and the CFPBs Regulation X, which implements RESPA. Specifically, these rules require servicers to provide borrowers with specific reasons for denial and information on their right to appeal. 
On XX/XX/XXXX we received a foreclosure sale date for XX/XX/XXXX. The motion to stop the foreclosure sale on XX/XX/XXXX based on the fact that they offered the short payoff option which they later denied and to let XXXX complete the consumer complaint were not honored. 
Legal Basis : Specifically, it is believed that when a lender offers a loss mitigation option and the homeowner relies on that offer, it creates an implied contract. The lender agrees to stop the foreclosure sale. If the lender then reneges on the offer, it's a breach of the implied contract. This means the lender is not honoring the agreement it made with the homeowner. Maryland law recognizes implied contracts. 
On XX/XX/XXXX we filed an emergency motion to stop the foreclosure sale scheduled for XX/XX/XXXX based on the fact that we previously asked to wait for the consumer complaint to complete their investigation and also that we believe that the lender was dual tracking therefore breaking state and federal laws. 
On XX/XX/XXXX we submitted an emergency motion to expedite consideration for the emergency motion that we submitted on XX/XX/XXXX and was not reviewed yet. Again we raised the concern that the lender was misleading us by thinking we could apply and maybe get a loss mitigation while at the same time pursuing foreclosure. 
On XX/XX/XXXX we filed an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction since the previous motions we filed were not reviewed and asked for a hearing. Again we raised the concern that the lender was misleading us by thinking we could apply and maybe get a loss mitigation while at the same time pursuing foreclosure.

Unfortunately, these motions were not reviewed by the Court prior to the sale.

The denial of these motions collectively, and not being reviewed before the foreclosure date has had a detrimental effect on the Defendant 's ability to be heard and their rights considered.

The foreclosed sale has caused significant emotional and financial distress and has caused irreparable damages.

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