Consumer complaint received 2015-10-06 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure — 
Company: SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
To Whom It May Concern, I am filing this complaint because Select Portfolio Servicing XXXX Inc., hereinafter referred to as SPS, has violated the Federal Truth In Lending Act. I have filed other complaints alleging other violations, however, this is the first I have filed a complaint against them for violating the clear and concise laws that make up the Federal Truth in Lending Act, hereinafter referred to as TILA. On XXXX XXXX, 2015, I mailed SPS, a notice of rescission. SPS receive my notice of rescission on XXXX XXXX, 2015. Under TILA, the rescission is self-enforcing and automatically extinguishes the deed of trust and the promissory note by OPERATION OF LAW. The act has also noted that delivering notification to the entity to which the consumer has been directed to send payments constitutes delivery to the creditor or the assignee. Upon receipt of the rescission, they ( SPS and/or the " creditor '' ) were to take specific and mandatory steps within twenty ( 20 ) calendar days of receipt of the notice of rescission. The Act makes no distinction between the right to rescind in 3 days or extended as neither cases nor statute gives the courts equitable discretion to alter TILA 's substantive provisions. This matter was strongly supported by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in the recent Supreme Court Ruling XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX that was decided on XXXX XXXX, 2015. Pursuant to the Act, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( b ), if SPS did not agree with my right to rescind or felt that I was not entitled to a right to rescind, they, as a " creditor '', were suppose to file a declaratory lawsuit against me to challenge the notice of rescission. They failed to take such action. Since they have failed to take any action within the statutory 20 calendar days, they have forever waived any and all defenses to the rescission. They have also failed to take the necessary steps to provide me with a reconveyance releasing the deed of trust and tender all monies paid in connection with my debt obligation to me. Although I am not looking for any monetary awards, I am entitled to a reconveyance of the deed of trust. SPS has sent me a couple of letters in response to my notice of rescission denying my right to rescind, however, the security interest is void and of no legal effect irrespective of whether they and/or the " creditor '' makes any affirmative response to the notice. There is no provision under TILA that allows them the right or authority to grant or deny my notice of rescission. If they disputed it, they had 20 calendar days to file a lawsuit against me and they have failed to do so. By operation of law, any interest SPS and/or the " creditor '' had was automatically negated regardless of its status and whether or not it was recorded or perfected. SPS is attempting to foreclosure on a deed of trust that has been canceled and is no longer a legal instrument. Since they have failed to abide by the mandatory acts under TILA, I am under no further obligation to SPS and/or the " creditor ''. For one, they have failed to abide by the statutory 20 day window period. XXXX, they are unable to establish that they are the true " creditor '' of my debt obligation. Due to the fact that the deed of trust has been canceled, they ( SPS and/or the " creditor '' ) are unable to use the deed of trust, promissory note, or any assignments to establish ownership. They must provide proof they actually lent me the funds. This is proof they do not possess and once again failed to file a lawsuit within 20 days. I felt the need to file this complaint because I am appalled and disgusted by SPS 's blatant disregard for the law. It appears they feel they have the right to do whatever they wish without any consequences of their actions. It is my belief that these laws were implemented to protect us and they should not be allowed to ignore and disregard them

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