Consumer complaint received 2025-05-11 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — FHA mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — Applying for or obtaining a modification, forbearance plan, short sale, or deed-in-lieu
Company: Mr. Cooper Group Inc.
State: CO

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this complaint to formally address several violations and concerning practices in Mr. Coopers handling of my mortgage loan modification request and foreclosure process. Despite my efforts to engage in loss mitigation assistance, I have encountered multiple regulatory violations under RESPA ( Regulation X, 12 CFR 1024.41 ) and UDAAP ( Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts and Practices ) under the Dodd-Frank Act.

1. Improper Handling of Missing Documents Request Mr. Cooper issued a Missing Documents Letter on XX/XX/year>, incorrectly requesting " Proof of Occupancy via a Luxury Bill. '' This unclear and erroneous request delayed the underwriting process. It was later acknowledged as an error in their XX/XX/year> response but caused unnecessary confusion and delay.

Under RESPA ( 12 CFR 1024.41 ), servicers are required to properly evaluate loss mitigation applications without imposing unnecessary delays due to incorrect documentation requests. Mr. Coopers failure to accurately request the correct documents may constitute a violation of RESPA guidelines.

2. Unfair Modification Denial Based on Excessive Interest Rate Mr. Cooper denied my loan modification due to " insufficient monthly payment reduction, '' despite proposing terms that significantly increased my monthly payment : Current P & I Payment : {$1100.00} Proposed Modification P & I Payment : {$2100.00} Proposed Interest Rate : 11.625 % ( Excessively High ) A loan modification should provide payment relief, not predatory rate increases. The proposed 11.625 % interest rate is higher then the current on the loan and is unfair and excessive, which could violate UDAAP protections against abusive lending practices. I request a review of whether Mr. Coopers modification terms were predatory and unreasonable.3. Potential RESPA Violation Foreclosure Status During Mitigation Mr. Cooper states foreclosure proceedings " may resume at any time, '' despite my loan modification review being active as of XX/XX/year>. 

Under RESPA ( Regulation X, 12 CFR 1024.41 ( g ) ), servicers can not proceed with foreclosure while a borrowers loss mitigation application is complete and under review. If foreclosure resumes without properly concluding my loss mitigation request, this would be considered a dual-tracking violation.

4. Unreasonable Fees and Escrow Charges Mr. Cooper has assessed corporate advances and legal fees, contributing to a reinstatement amount of {$23000.00}. These fees may include improper charges that should be
reviewed.

Under UDAAP guidelines, servicers must avoid deceptive practices that inflate fees beyond reason. If any fees were improperly assessed or excessive in nature, they may violate consumer 
protection laws. I request an investigation into whether these charges were accurately calculated and lawfully imposed.

Given the concerns listed above, I formally request : A review of Mr. Coopers loan modification practices, particularly their excessively high proposed interest rate.

Confirmation that foreclosure will not proceed while loss mitigation review is active, in accordance with RESPA guidelines. 

An investigation into any improper fees assessed, including corporate advances and legal charges. 

A directive requiring Mr. Cooper to correct its documentation handling processes to prevent future delays caused by incorrect requests.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation