Consumer complaint received 2026-04-15 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Closing on a mortgage — Changes in loan terms during or after closing
Company: SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
REBUTTAL TO SPS RESPONSE ( CFPB SUBMISSION ) I. INTRODUCTION This response rebuts the assertions made by Select Portfolio Servicing , Inc. ( SPS ) and its counsel. SPSs position is based on mischaracterizations of facts, incomplete investigation, and failure to address the core issue : No loan proceeds were ever disbursed to the borrower or to creditors in a completed transaction. Instead, SPS relies solely on * * origination documents * *, while ignoring * * actual funding, disbursement, and return-of-funds evidence. -- - II. SPS MISSTATES THE ISSUE SPS frames this dispute as borrower regret or inconsistency. That is false. The actual issue is : Funds were never consummated or disbursed Checks were returned uncashed Title company retained or returned funds SPS can not prove disbursement This is confirmed in their own admission : > SPS does not possess any documents indicating the loan failed to fund, or you did not receive the loan proceeds. This is not proof of funding it is lack of proof either way, which is fatal to their position. -- - III. RETURN OF FUNDS = NO COMPLETED DISBU RSEMENT SPS claims the loan must have funded because checks existed and were returned. This is legally incorrect. Key Facts ( Documented ) : XX/XX/year> : Checks returned uncashed Title company confirmed handling of checks Borrower explicitly rejected funds No creditor payoff was completed See email evidence : > I have no need of these checks They have been returned Legal Reality : A loan is not funded merely because checks are issued Funding requires completed disbursement + acceptance + use Returned, uncashed checks = rescinded / incomplete transaction -- - IV. SPS FAILS TO PROVE DISBURSEMENT SPS relies on : Deed of Trust Promissory Note Closing Disclosure These are intent documents, not proof of funding. Missing Evidence ( Critical ) : SPS provides NO : Wire confirmations Cleared check records Creditor payoff confirmations Escrow disbursement XXXX XXXX settlement records Without proof of actual disbursement, the debt is unverified and improperly reported -- - V. CONTRADICTION IN SPS POSITION SPS argues BOTH : 1. Loan funded 2. Borrower returned checks These can not coexist. If checks were returned : Funds were never accepted Payoffs were never completed Loan purpose failed This creates a failed transaction / voidable obligation -- - VI. TITLE COMPANY HOLDS OR RETURNED FUNDS Independent evidence confirms : XXXX XXXX acknowledged involvement Funds tied to transaction were not completed Borrower was redirected back to lender See supplemental complaint : XXXX XXXX XXXX holds funds pending CrossCountry approval This directly contradicts SPSs claim of completed funding. -- - VII. CREDIT REPORTING IS FALSE ( FCRA VIOLATION ) SPS continues reporting this as a valid debt despite : No completed disbursement No borrower benefit No creditor payoff Violation : 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ( Failure to report accurate information after dispute ) Reporting a loan as owed when funds were never received = materially false -- - VIII. UDAAP VIOLATIONS ( CFPA ) SPS and XXXX engaged in : Unfair Conduct Holding {$86000.00} without resolution Reporting debt without funding Failing to correct known error Deceptive Conduct Representing a funded loan when funds were never consummated Transferring servicing with unresolved funding defect -- - IX. RESPA DEFENSE IS MISAPPLIED SPS claims RESPA does not apply due to business purpose loan. Even if true : That does NOT excuse : False credit reporting Failure to investigate disputes Retention of funds without accounting Misrepresentation of debt -- - X. SPS FAILED TO CONDUCT REASONABLE INVESTIGATION Instead of investigating : They relied entirely on origination paperwork Ignored return-of-funds evidence Ignored title company involvement This is a facially unreasonable investigation standard -- - XI. LEGAL POSITION This situation constitutes : 1. Failure of Consideration No funds no enforceable debt 2. Unjust XXXX / XXXX XXXX {$86000.00} exists but is not credited or returned 3. Fraud / Misrepresentation Debt reported without underlying transaction completion 4. Credit Reporting Violations Debt inaccurately reported -- - XII. DEMAND FOR RELIEF The Complainant demands : Immediate Actions : 1. Full accounting of {$86000.00} Wire logs Check clearing records Escrow ledger 2. Correction of credit reporting Remove or correct tradeline 3. Loan status correction Reflect unfunded/ disputed 4. Return or proper application of funds -- - If SPS can not produce proof of disbursement : The loan must be : Voided OR Adjusted to {$0.00} principal balance -- - XIII. PRESERVATION OF CLAIMS Complainant reserves all rights to pursue : Federal claims ( FCRA, CFPA ) State law claims ( fraud, misrepresentation ) Injunctive relief Damages -- - XIV. CONCLUSION SPSs response fails because it relies on paperwork, not reality. > A loan is not valid because documents exist > it is valid only if funds were actually disbursed and received. Here, the evidence shows : * Funds were rejected * Checks were returned * No disbursement occurred * Yet a debt is being reported That is improper, unlawful, and must be corrected immediately.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation