Consumer complaint received 2016-09-09 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)
Issue: Loan servicing, payments, escrow account — 
Company: SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. ( SPS ) took over my loan from XXXX XXXX, XXXX. SPS told me that my last payment was make on XXXX XXXX, XXXX in the amount of {$1500.00} and my next payment is due on XXXX XXXX, XXXX my next payment amount is XXXX. SPS gave me the incorrect amount the bank say that I own them, {$1500.00} for at lear 15 months, the total payment SPS did not add to my account is {$22000.00}. Base on this dispute and the servicer to prepare the loan modification for me said that they did submit the loan modification on XXXX XXXX, XXXX. I did call in to check the status for my loan modification on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, I did talk to XXXX XXXX, she said that they do not have my loan modification on their system. She request me to go to police department to report for Identify Theft Victims ' Complaint and Affidavit. Today XXXX XXXX, XXXX, I call in again request for the postpone my house and he said I need to sign the for Identify Theft Victims ' Complaint and Affidavit they did send it to me but I never received it, I do not think I need to sign Identify Theft Victims ' Complaint and Affidavit for them to stop postpone my sale date because this is a complaint about the fraud the bank foreclose my house not for Identify Theft Victims ' Complaint. I am so confuse the way SPS treated as their customer. 
" The subprime debacle, which I would define as loans that should n't have been made andpackaged that originated between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, was probably the biggest Ponzi scheme in thehistory of mankind. '' XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, opening speaker, " The Subprime Mortgage Fallout, '' State Bar of California XXXX Annual Real Property Law Section Retreat, XXXX XXXX, XXXX. XXXX the subprime meltdown, banks abandoned traditional underwriting practices and caused a frenzy of real estate speculation by issning predatory loans that ultimately lowered property values in the United States by XXXX-XXXX %. Banks reaped an unprecedented harvest. XXXX XXXX, CEO of XXXX XXXX, took home more than XXXX during the seven years.Banks issued XXXX predatory loans knowing that the borrowers would default and lose their homes, and then committed perjury and fraud to fabricate documents in the foreclosure process. 
As a direct, foreseeable, proximate result, XXXX families are now in danger of foreclosure, and i am facing illegal foreclosure of my home at a Trustee 's Sale scheduled for XXXX XXXX, XXXX. 
XXXX responding to the foreclosure crisis in California, the City and County of XXXX XXXX 's Office of The Assessor-Recorder of XXXX XXXX had retained XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX ( " XXXX '' ) to review XXXX residential mortgage loan transactions ( " Subject Loans '' ) that resulted in foreclosure sales that occurred from XXXX XXXX through XXXX XXXX. Over This period, XXXX analyzed the Subject Loans to determine the mortgage industry 's compliance with applicable laws. Specially, XXXX focused its analysis on important topics relating to XXXX subject areas such as Assignments, Notice of Default, Substitution of Trustee, Notice of Trustee Sale, Suspicious Activities Indicative of Potential Fraud, and Conflicts Relating to XXXX. 
In its report, XXXX stated that the subject areas and the topics it explored may not be exhaustive. Nonetheless, it believed the analysis presents an accurate picture of the nature and frequency of the mortgage industry 's performance respecting compliance with important aspect of California 's non judicial foreclosure laws. Overall, it identified one or more regularities in XXXX % of the subject loans. In XXXX % of the loans, it identified what appeared to be one or more clear violation of law. In gathering the facts, researching the facts, reviewing the documents set forth in the Exhibits, and reviewing XXXX ' report ( Exhibit " G '' ),

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