Consumer complaint received 2025-12-28 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — Foreclosure
Company: Mr. Cooper Group Inc.
State: NJ

Complaint narrative:
Servicer : Mr. Cooper / Nationstar Mortgage LLC Borrower : XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX NJ XXXX Loan Number XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  NJ XXXX Loan Number XXXX SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT ( Overview applies to both loans ) I am filing this complaint regarding systemic, unfair, and deceptive mortgage servicing misconduct by Mr. Cooper affecting two separate mortgage loans owned by different investors, both serviced by Mr. Cooper. 

Across both loans, Mr. Cooper has engaged in a pattern of unlawful dual tracking, false claims of missing documents, contradictory loss-mitigation determinations, failure to honor complete application status, and bad-faith termination of loss mitigation during an active regulatory investigation, including immediately following the death of a household income contributor. 

Despite acknowledging receipt of documents, repeatedly soliciting documentation, and marking applications complete, Mr. Cooper advanced foreclosure activity and then retroactively claimed it was too late to review due to pending sheriffs sales deadlines that Mr. Cooper itself created and controlled. 

LOAN 1 : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX NJ Sheriffs Sale Scheduled : XX/XX/XXXX Key Violations Unlawful Dual Tracking ( 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( f ) and ( g ) ) While my loss-mitigation application was pending and after extensive document submission between XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX Mr. Cooper continued to advance foreclosure toward a XX/XX/XXXX sheriffs sale. The servicer continued to request and accept documents while simultaneously progressing foreclosure, which constitutes prohibited dual tracking. 

Fabrication of Incompleteness / False Claims of Missing Documents Mr. Cooper falsely claimed that documents submitted in XX/XX/XXXX were new or late, when in fact they were re-transmissions of documents already submitted weeks or months earlier. These re-submissions were compelled solely because Mr. Cooper falsely denied receipt of earlier submissions. 

Failure to Respond to Notice of Error ( 12 C.F.R. 1024.35 ) On XX/XX/XXXX, I served a detailed Notice of Error identifying false document-receipt claims, foreclosure misrepresentations, and dual tracking. Mr. Cooper failed to conduct a reasonable investigation and instead issued boilerplate responses that ignored the errors raised. 

Bad-Faith XXXX XXXX Termination On XX/XX/XXXX immediately after I notified Mr. Cooper of the death of a household income contributor Mr. Cooper terminated loss mitigation, asserting it was too late due to the XX/XX/XXXX sale. This termination was issued during a holiday period with virtually no business days remaining, depriving me of any meaningful opportunity to appeal or cure. 

Failure to Comply with Successor-in-Interest Requirements ( 12 C.F.R. 1024.38 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( vi ) ) After being notified of the death of XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ), Mr. Cooper failed to : identify documents reasonably required to confirm successor status ; make a prompt confirmation determination ; or avoid interfering with loss-mitigation rights. 

Instead, the servicer rushed termination and foreclosure without initiating the required successor-in-interest process. 

LOAN 2 : XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NJ Sheriffs Sale Scheduled : XX/XX/XXXX Key Violations Contradictory and Pretextual Loss-Mitigation Denials Mr. Cooper issued conflicting letters in XX/XX/XXXX stating both : that loss mitigation was denied due to missing documents, and that the loan failed to meet unspecified delinquency requirements. 

These explanations are mutually inconsistent and unsupported by any investor guideline provided to me. 

False Representations to a State Regulator While a state regulatory investigation was pending, Mr. Cooper represented that loss mitigation could continue if I provided HOA documentation despite the fact that : HOA documentation had been provided repeatedly since XXXX ; HOA fees are modest ( $ XXXX ) ; and the servicer terminated loss mitigation the very next day on XXXX XXXX within minutes of receiving the other termination letter for the above property. 

Bad-Faith Reopening of Loss Mitigation to Manufacture Incompleteness After denying a complete application, Mr. Cooper purported to reopen loss mitigation while knowing that a sheriffs sale was scheduled less than 37 days away effectively creating a scenario where the servicer could later claim no complete package was submitted within required timeframes. 

Holiday-Timing Abuse Mr. Cooper sent termination and contradictory correspondence at approximately XXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXX, including letters containing unfinished bracketed placeholder text and references to health recovery of a deceased person, demonstrating automated and reckless processing. 

PATTERN OR PRACTICE ( Both Loans ) Taken together, Mr. Coopers conduct demonstrates a pattern or practice of noncompliance, including : denying receipt of borrower-submitted documents ; compelling repeated re-submission and then treating re-submissions as new ; advancing foreclosure during active loss-mitigation review ; creating procedural dead ends by barring access to short sale or deed-in-lieu options while foreclosing ; issuing contradictory and boilerplate determinations ; and terminating loss mitigation immediately following a death and during a pending regulatory investigation. 

REQUESTED RESOLUTION I request that the CFPB require Mr. Cooper to : Immediately halt foreclosure activity on both properties while loss-mitigation and successor-in-interest issues are properly reviewed ; Correct servicing records to reflect timely document submission and completion status ; Provide written identification of the investor and all authorized loss-mitigation options for each loan ; Conduct a lawful successor-in-interest determination consistent with Regulation X ; and Cease unfair and deceptive servicing practices, including fabricated incompleteness and holiday-timed denials.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation