Consumer complaint received 2017-07-20 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — 
Company: SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.
State: WA

Complaint narrative:
This complaint is my 5th complaint on the same general case. The previous complaint numbers are ; XXXX which explained what happened. XXXX asks six questions that I would like the CFPB to ask the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX or if they say they have no knowledge then please ask whoever they suggest is best equipped to answer these six questions. XXXX is really a complaint against the CFBD in that there is no way that I can get a hold of and talk to a real person about my case. I live in XXXX, XXXX and therefore can not reach you by phone or fax and you apparently have no e-mail address. XXXX authorizes my full blood sister, XXXX XXXX who was born on XXXX XXXX, XXXX in XXXX, California to discuss my case with This complaint is to notify you that a major crime was committed by the XXXX XXXX XXXX or who ever sold my note and deed of trust to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. The details are spelled out in the attachment. But basically I borrowed {$150000.00} from XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX in XXXX XXXX against my house located at XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX Washington. This loan was made at 70 % of value. This means the house was appraised for {$220000.00} and the loan was made at 70 % of this evaluation. The XXXX XXXX XXXX bought XXXX XXXX in XXXX, and then foreclosed against me in XXXX of XXXX for non-payment of my mortgage loan and took possession of my house. They informed me that I no longer owned the house and hired a property manager to manage the house who then changed the locks and told my tenant, XXXX XXXX that I no longer owned the house. I quickly wrote a letter to the XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX in which I told them that they did not follow the legal procedures required for a non-judicial foreclosure. And I threaten to hire a lawyer and sue them if they did not give me my house back within two weeks. In less than two weeks their property manager who I assumed was working for the XXXX XXXX XXXX called me to tell me to come to his office and get the keys to my house. Now the bank may dispute my story, but I will say under oath that the banks property manager who I understood to represent the XXXX XXXX XXXX told me that The XXXX XXXX XXXX has decided to give you your house back and write off the loan as a bad debt. If this is not true then what is their explanation as to why I was given the keys to my house without requiring me to sign a new loan agreement or to make any payments what so ever. And let me also answer the question as to why the XXXX XXXX XXXX would suddenly give me my house free and clear of debt? This would appear to be a very good question and I have a very good answer. 1. As noted above my house was appraised in XXXX at {$220000.00}. But by XX/XX/XXXX the value had collapsed to under {$100000.00}. So to put it in banker 's language my house was underwater by at least {$60000.00}. To put my house up for sale the XXXX would have had to invest at least {$20000.00} in fix up costs plus pay the taxes and insurance for maybe several years. And the XXXX was suddenly faced with the ownership of millions of houses like mine all over the US which were like alligators eating into the already low capital that supported the XXXX XXXX very survival. So they took the most prudent action and just gave the owner his house back. I know they did this in many thousands of cases. So they did not give me my house back out of any sense of compassion or pity for me. They did it out necessity to keep from going bankrupt. This is before they were bailed out by the Feds. Now getting back to my story, I took the XXXX XXXX property manager 's words to mean that I did n't have to make any more mortgage payments and should consider this action by the XXXX as a gift. So I returned to my house and informed my tenant, XXXX XXXX of what had just happened and told him, to resume considering me as the owner of the house and to resume paying me rent -- which he did. So I continued to operate the house as the debt free owner from XX/XX/XXXX until XXXX of XX/XX/XXXXor over 8.5 years when suddenly another lender, The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX represented by XXXX XXXX and XXXX tacked a Notice of Default on the front and back door of my house. They too may have acted illegally in doing that. Please investigate and let me know your findings. Now let me point out that Washington State has a Statute of Limitations law which says that if a lender takes no legal action to collect a debt for six years then it can no longer do so. They also have a gift law that says once you give real property to someone as a gift that you can not ask for it back. And my third legal defense point is that there are very specific legal rules that a bank has to follow to carry out what is called a non-judicial foreclosure. And the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX of XXXX like XXXX XXXX  XXXX in XX/XX/XXXXhas not followed these specific legal rules. My law suit : In XXXX of XXXX I filed a law suit in the Superior Court of XXXX County, Washington State against the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX in which I stated the above described three legal reasons as to why these three financial institutions were acting improperly and illegally to foreclose against me. And I asked the Court to give me : 1. Clear title to my house without any debt 2. All of my legal fees which at this point = about {$11000.00} 3. Damages in the amount of {$900.00} per month since XX/XX/XXXX when they improperly and illegally tacked the Notice of Default to the front and back door of my house. This action caused my tenant to quite paying me rent and after three more months she moved out. These damages now amount to 16 months x {$900.00} or {$14000.00}. On XX/XX/XXXXthe defendants in this law suit asked the judge to require me to pay them {$1400.00} per month while waiting for the judge to hear and decide this case. He denied their request. So I do not have to pay them anything until the judge hears and decides this case. Now last week when I read the defendants ( the three financial institutions ) response to my law suit, and also went back and re-read their Notice of Default It suddenly hit me that perhaps we are overlooking a very important legal fact. And that is we have been assuming that we are now dealing with the same bank or financial institution that gave me the original loan and in fact we are not. In fact, according to the Notice of Default, on or about XX/XX/XXXX a fraudulent crime was committed. The bank that gave me the loan in XX/XX/XXXXand then foreclosed on me in XX/XX/XXXXand took repossession of my house for about two weeks and then gave me my house back as a gift without requiring that I sign a new loan or start making and monthly payments is not the same bank as the 3 defendants in this lawsuit. And that is because-according to the Notice of Default on XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX who must have been representing the XXXX XXXX XXXX which bought XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX knowingly and fraudulently sold what they knew was a bad loan or actually a loan that they had written off as uncollectable in XX/XX/XXXX to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX FKA. Again it is clearly a crime to sell something which you know is of no value to someone else for a lot of money. Therefore the 3 defendants in this case do not know the true background in this case and they do not have the files to defend themselves or to refute me. They know nothing about what happened in XXXX. But they should be asking questions of the XXXX XXXX XXXX as to why they foreclosed against me in XXXX, took possession of my house and then gave it back to me without requiring me to sign a new loan or make any payments. And then why did the XXXX XXXX XXXX not take any further legal action against me or make any attempt to collect on this loan for nearly three years after which they fraudulently sold it to The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX FKA.

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