Consumer complaint received 2017-03-03 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure — 
Company: SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
Our firm, XXXX XXXX, XXXX has been monitoring our client 's request for mortgage assistance to Select Portfolio Servicing , Inc. ( " SPS '' ) to ensure SPS 's compliance with Regulation X. For the past few months, our client has been trying to get his application reviewed by SPS. However, SPS has failed to act diligently in its review of his application and even failed to inform Plaintiff 's foreclosure counsel of the active status of the loss mitigation review, which ultimately led to Plaintiff pursuing and obtaining a foreclosure judgment against our client improperly. 
Our client submitted an application for mortgage assistance to SPS on XX/XX/XXXX via facsimile. The application package was also submitted to SPS via U.S. Certified Mail. On or around XX/XX/XXXX, SPS sent our client a request for additional documentation. Subsequently, all of the requested items were submitted in a timely manner via facsimile to SPS as directed. On XX/XX/XXXX, we called SPS and confirmed all of the documents were received and nothing further was needed. Then on XX/XX/XXXX, we called SPS again to determine the status of our client 's application. During this conversation, we were informed for the first time that additional information was still needed from the borrower. After conferring with our client, we provided the requested information to SPS over the telephone on XX/XX/XXXX and we were told the application would be promptly submitted to the underwriter for an evaluation. 
Despite being actively engaged in loss mitigation efforts with SPS for the past several months, counsel for Plaintiff in the foreclosure action ( i.e. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) has been actively pursuing a foreclosure judgment against our client by means of a Motion for Summary Judgment, which is a clear violation of 12 CFR 1024.41 ( g ). Not only was Plaintiff 's counsel actively pursuing, but it was also successful in obtaining a foreclosure judgment against our client on XX/XX/XXXX. SPS did not conclude its evaluation of the borrower 's complete application for mortgage assistance until XX/XX/XXXX, and pursuant to the denial letter and applicable federal regulations ; he still has 30 days from that date to appeal the decision. Please note, we definitely intend to appeal the decision because there were several errors made by SPS in the calculation of our client 's income and the NPV data inputs but we will be addressing our appeal under separate cover. 
Due to the foregoing, Plaintiff 's counsel was prohibited from seeking a judgment against the borrower and was even required to take steps to request that the court not issue a judgment prior to the conclusion of the loss mitigation review, which it clearly did not. We believe SPS is responsible for directing the activities of foreclosure counsel and thus are fully responsible for the improper and actionable steps taken by XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX in connection with this matter.

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