Consumer complaint received 2025-06-19 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: Selene Holdings LLC
State: MO

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint to supplement my original CFPB claim and raise additional concerns regarding XXXX XXXX handling of my mortgage loss mitigation application, servicing procedures, and foreclosure activities. 

Incomplete Loss Mitigation Review On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a loan modification denial letter from Selene Finance, dated XX/XX/XXXX. The letter indicated that I was evaluated only for a loan modification and explicitly listed the following alternatives as not evaluated : Repayment Plan Forbearance Plan Payment Deferral or Partial Claim Specified Term Modification The only options presented were a deed in lieu of foreclosure or short sale, which are not applicable to my current hardship. The denial reason given was : The post modification front end debt to income ratio is outside the acceptable range. However, no actual XXXX figures or eligibility ranges were provided. 

This denial occurred less than XXXX week after my case was reopened a process that itself took nearly XXXX months of repeated escalation because XXXX had previously claimed they did not receive my documents, despite confirmation to the contrary. 

XXXX failure to evaluate me for all available loss mitigation options violates XXXX CFR XXXX ( c ), which requires a servicer to review a complete application for all loss mitigation options available to the borrower. I have submitted a formal written appeal under the law. 

Servicing Irregularities and Lack of Transparency On the same day I received the denial ( XX/XX/XXXX ), I also received a separate letter dated XX/XX/XXXX naming my single point of contact for the modification process. By that time, the review had already been completed and denied, giving me no opportunity to communicate with this contact, which defeats the purpose of the assignment. 

Additionally, I attempted to use XXXX online borrower portal, but the upload feature has never functioned properly. I was unable to submit documents via the portal, and none of the correspondence ( denials, notices, contact assignments ) have ever appeared in the Documents section of the portal as required. This severely hindered my ability to track deadlines, monitor responses, or participate in the process meaningfully. 

Foreclosure Activity During Active Mitigation Review On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a letter from XXXX & XXXX, XXXX, dated XX/XX/XXXX, informing me they were retained by Selene Finance to proceed with foreclosure. This was based on an original denial ( claiming my file was incomplete ) dated XX/XX/XXXX. However, that denial was disputed and the case was reopened, yet XXXX continued to move forward with foreclosure activity. 

This raises serious concerns about dual tracking a prohibited practice under XXXX CFR XXXX ( g ) where a servicer initiates or advances foreclosure while a complete loss mitigation application is under review. 

Ownership and Compliance Questions I also used the Fannie Mae and XXXX XXXX loan lookup tools and confirmed that my mortgage is not backed by either entity. XXXX has never disclosed who owns or insures my loan, despite my formal request in writing. I am requesting that XXXX identify the owner or investor of my mortgage, per XXXX XXXX XXXX ( d ), so I can determine what investor-specific rules should apply.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation