Consumer complaint received 2016-06-29 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure — 
Company: SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.
State: SC

Complaint narrative:
My condo was foreclosed on by XXXX a year ago. I got in this situation because XXXX was the servicer of my loan and this property had both a first and second mortgage on it, both serviced by XXXX. When my business was impacted by the downturn in XXXX, I struggled to keep both mortgages current. However, when the worst of the mortgage crisis hit, my property value dropped to below the balance of the first mortgage and there was nothing to support the second. Well before I was unable to make both payments, I contacted XXXX to try to work out something to allow me to pay the second mortgage later, or reduce payments temporarily, but they refused to work with me. So by XXXX, I was finally unable to pay both mortgage payments, so when I sent in my payment for the first mortgage, but did not include the payment for the second, XXXX returned my payment to me and refused to accept it. I tried 3 times, but each time the payment in full for the first mortgage, plus additional interest, was returned. We are appealing the foreclosure decision, because they provided no proof of standing, and we have a letter from the VP of XXXX telling me they were not the owner of my mortgage and could not initiate a foreclosure action against us. However, the judge ignored that evidence and a lot of other, including testimony of the bank representative ( an employee of Select Portfolio Servicing , Inc. that is now the servicer after XXXX turned the loan over to them ) that indicated that XXXX, the Plaintiff, had never possessed the note. I was offered the opportunity in XXXX to apply for SPS ' Home Retention Program and completed all required paperwork. It appeared they were interested in working something out, but they would always wait until the last minute to cancel foreclosure sales scheduled by them. The stress has been unbelievable. My application for their programs was finally denied in XXXX, based on the fact that they had characterized my condo as vacant/abandoned. They had the complete rental records for XXXX and XXXX in their possession as part of my application package, and when I spoke with their CSR after filing my appeal of their decision, she told me that there were notes in their file indicating that they had sent someone out to visit the property and he indicated that " clearly it was occupied. '' However, in all this time since I appealed their decision, they have refused to clear up that mischaracterization and seriously consider my application. Almost 2 weeks ago, I called their Ombudsman 's department and was told that they had made a " business decision '' to not cancel the foreclosure sale set for tomorrow, XXXX XXXX, XXXX. When I asked why they would do that when I wanted to work something out and they had denied my application because of an error in their servicing, they told me they were n't going to fix the error, and would move on with the sale. She did, however, suggest that I file a new application and new information to be reviewed, so I did that on that same day 2 weeks ago. My new application includes the lease of the tenant that will be there all year, but they are still n ot doing anything to cancel the sale. I have received letters indicating that my new information will be evaluated, which indicates to me that they are reconsidering my situation, but they still refuse to cancel the sale even when I have reminded them that they are guilty of " dual tracking '' according to the RESPA laws. So, tomorrow, unless some miracle occurs, my property will be sold, even with a great deal of likelihood that we will prevail in the appeal. SPS has acted dishonorably, has breached the conduct required of servicers by the law, and is lying, cheating and stealing to get my property. I am also suspicious that they did n't actually purchase the loan from XXXX, but only collection rights to a retired debt.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation