Consumer complaint received 2026-05-27 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure
Company: Selene Holdings LLC
State: IL

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this complaint regarding Selene XXXX handling of my mortgage loan and recent loss mitigation review. I recently submitted a request for mortgage assistance and loan modification review and Selene denied the request while providing only a vague and conclusory explanation that I was too many payments behind to qualify. This explanation is both insufficient and inconsistent with prior servicing conduct. Notably, Selene previously approved a loan modification on this same loan despite the account already being beyond the alleged 24-month delinquency threshold they referenced during a recent call with the borrower. During the most recent communication, Selene representatives have repeatedly failed to clearly identify : the actual investor guideline allegedly prohibiting approval the owner or investor of the loan whether the denial was based on investor restrictions or internal servicing policy whether all available modification waterfall options were reviewed the financial analysis supporting the denial Instead of meaningfully discussing available retention options, the conversation was largely focused on encouraging surrender of the property without providing substantive information regarding alternatives, reconsideration, escalation, re-amortization options, extension structures, or any detailed explanation of the review process. This raises serious concerns regarding whether Selene conducted a complete and compliant evaluation of the loss mitigation application. Under Regulation X and RESPA servicing requirements, including 12 CFR 1024.41, mortgage servicers are required to exercise reasonable diligence in obtaining documents and evaluating complete loss mitigation applications. Servicers are also required to provide borrowers with specific reasons for denial sufficient for the borrower to understand the basis of the decision and pursue any available appeal rights where applicable. Selenes generalized statement that the loan is too many payments behind to modify fails to identify : the actual restriction relied upon the applicable investor guideline the Underwriting analysis performed or whether any alternatives to foreclosure avoidance were reviewed This is especially concerning because conventional loan modification programs commonly contemplate capitalization of substantial arrearages, term extensions, and other retention structures for borrowers who are already significantly delinquent. The denial therefore appears either : 1. procedurally defective 2. unsupported by adequately disclosed investor restrictions 3. inconsistently applied or based on undisclosed internal overlays rather than clearly articulated investor requirements Additionally, Selene representatives repeatedly failed to provide meaningful assistance during communications and instead appeared primarily focused on disposition of the property rather than exploration of available foreclosure prevention options

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation