Consumer complaint received 2026-05-18 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: Village Capital & Investment LLC
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
Village Capital & Investment LLC is servicing my XXXX mortgage on my Florida primary residence. I am a borrower in good faith seeking to retain my home through legitimate FHA loss mitigation channels. Village Capital violated 12 CFR 1024.41 ( f ), 1024.41 ( h ), and HUD Handbook 4000.1 by referring my loan to foreclosure within the protected window following a complete loss mitigation application, and by failing to evaluate me for the full FHA loss mitigation waterfall. The facts, taken directly from XXXXillage Capital 's own XX/XX/XXXX response letter to my prior CFPB complaint : XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Village Capital received and commenced processing my second loss mitigation application. XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Village Capital issued a Loss Mitigation Denial Letter. XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Village Capital referred my loan to foreclosure. That is XXXX calendar days from receipt of my complete loss mitigation application to foreclosure referral. Under 12 CFR 1024.41 ( f ) ( 2 ), a servicer can not make the first foreclosure filing or referral within XXXX days of receiving a complete loss mitigation application unless specific exceptions are met. Additionally, the foreclosure referral occurred only XXXX days after the denial letter, well inside the XXXX appeal window under 12 CFR 1024.41 ( h ) ( XXXX ) during which foreclosure activity is impermissible. Village Capital 's response letter argues " your loan was not referred to foreclosure until XX/XX/XXXX ... no complete package under review or approved loss mitigation plan at that time. '' This ignores the appeal mechanism, which is part of the loss mitigation procedure under 1024.41 ( h ). A denial that has not yet exhausted appeal rights does not nullify the procedural protections of 1024.41 ( f ). Village Capital 's response letter also enumerates the loss mitigation options they claim to have evaluated me for : forbearance, repayment plan, loan modification, partial claim, and pre-foreclosure sale. NOT on this list is the FHA Payment Supplement, which became a mandatory waterfall option under HUD XXXX XXXX XXXX, effective XX/XX/XXXX. My loan was originated in XX/XX/XXXX, well after Payment Supplement became required. Village Capital 's failure to evaluate me for Payment Supplement is a direct violation of HUD Handbook 4000.1 and FHA servicing requirements for federally insured loans. Payment Supplement is specifically designed for borrowers in my situation and could enable a sustainable monthly payment that allows me to retain the property. Village Capital 's payment history also shows corporate advances assessed to a payee identified only as " XXXX '' climbing from {$30.00} on XX/XX/XXXX to {$2500.00} by XX/XX/XXXX a {$2500.00} increase in 29 days, coinciding precisely with the procedurally improper foreclosure referral on XX/XX/XXXX. Village Capital 's response letter does not explain what " XXXX '' is, what services these fees cover, when each was assessed, or under what contractual authority they were charged to my account. If these are foreclosure-attorney fees, they were assessed in connection with a referral that itself appears to violate 12 CFR 1024.41 ( f ). I am not seeking monetary damages. I am seeking restoration of my loss mitigation rights so I can retain my home. I am ready, willing, and able to resume payments under a sustainable FHA loss mitigation plan and request that the CFPB direct Village Capital to halt foreclosure activity and conduct a proper, complete FHA loss mitigation review including evaluation for Payment Supplement.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation