Consumer complaint received 2024-02-20 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — Foreclosure
Company: SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.
State: AZ

Complaint narrative:
Thank you for your response. My application for assistance was originally submitted on XX/XX/XXXX. of XXXX. The homeowners assistance fund was awaiting a response from SPS for 5 months. By the time SPS responded to the XXXX  program, enough time had elapsed which with all of the fees added by SPS, and the entire amount of monies required in full from a forbarence, with no partial payments accepted, the amount owed had surpassed the XXXX  program funding limit. I attempted to start making my mortgage payments on time after my forbarence and was informed I could not do so until I payed the entire amount in full. 

Knowing this information I spoke with both the ombudsman department at SPS as well as the XXXX personnel to keep them informed, and stay informed. The staff at SPS could not explain to me how to pay the remaining balance combined with XXXX  monies in order to get my mortgage current. I was told to, attempt to send the money at the same time as XXXX sends there monies, so the checks would hopefully arrive around the same time, because if one of the checks arrived before the other, there was a good chance the funds would be rejected as they would not cover the total delinquent amount. I was told that my money could in fact, be absorbed, without being refunded and my mortgage still not being reinstated. No one ever determined how I was to send my part of the funds necessary to reinstate. This was all taking place over a period of time while I was in constant contact with the ombudsman department. It was known, that I was going to be paying the difference, the ombudsman department knew about it, the XXXX program knew about it, and from the responses from SPS to the XXXX  program, they never acknowledged this at all. 

In your response, you suggested that a new I record was sent on XX/XX/XXXX, the day of the foreclosure. It was actually sent on the XXXX of XXXX, XXXX at XXXX XXXX in a XXXX XXXX. I even spoke with the Ombudsman department about all of this once at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX and then later spoke with XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX explained my situation and the need to postpone my trustee sale, and he conveniently hung up on me did not call me back nor would he answer after numerous attempts to call him back. According to the terms of the XXXX  program, upon receiving an I record in a XXXX XXXX, and once the XXXX  program has notified the servicer of my application, that a 60 day forclosure hold is to be placed. This notification happened well before the XXXX XXXX cut off time for reinstatement the day before the foreclosure sale. Previous to this, I spoke with XXXX, an employee in the ombudsman department at SPS, on XX/XX/XXXX when I was instructed by XXXX  to contact SPS and explain that they were reviewing the reinstatement and they needed a little more time to complete it. 

In regards to the newspaper posting, I apologize for not having seen the publication SPS posted in. I would have expected the notice of trustee sale to have been in a publication which circulated in the same town where the home is located, The XXXX XXXX only circulates in the towns of XXXX, XXXX, XXXX and XXXX, The closest of which is XXXX miles from the home, and the farthest being over XXXX miles away. This is why there were no other bidders present at the home auction, because no one knew about the sale. This paper has such a small circulation. Not to mention the fact that the median household income in say XXXX, AZ is a mere XXXX, compared to XXXX where the home is located, where the XXXX  household income is {$72000.00}. These communities could not afford a home like ours, well except the XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX. A house with so much equity, almost half a XXXX dollars, in such a prime location, you would have expected a bidding frenzy, however this was not the case. One bidder was present, only one. 

Let me also address the conversations with the Ombudsman department at SPS on XX/XX/XXXX. When I again explained my situation to that department, and the need to postpone the sale, and I was informed that the sale was placed on hold in order for me to send proof of my contribution amount to them, and I did. They also requested a copy of my application status with the XXXX, which I also provided. I spoke with the ombudsman department well into the afternoon of XX/XX/XXXX, and was informed the sale was put on hold. Well this was complete misinformation, as the sale was never put on hold, not at all. The sale took place at XXXX in the morning. So while it is suggested that the ombudsman department did not promise me a postponement of my sale, they flat out told me that it had been put on hold, until they received copies of my bank balance, which I sent and confirmed with ombudsman department they had been received. 

I understand that I made a mistake. I fell behind on my mortgage as so many families had as a result of the XXXX XXXX  and that is an unfortunate situation, however, I followed all of the rules in order to get help from the state to not loose my home. SPS ignored my attempts and feel did not follow the rules and regulations regarding assistance from XXXX funding.

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