Consumer complaint received 2024-10-31 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Mortgage debt
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Threatened to sue you for very old debt
Company: Statebridge Company
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
Hello, allow me to provide background information about myself and my situation. I am an XXXX XXXX XXXX, retired and XXXX  woman. My co-borrower and husband, passed away in XXXX from XXXX. We own home in XXXX XXXX, XXXX  where I currently reside. I live off social security and XXXX  XXXX  assistance, which covers my primary mortgage payments and utilities. XXXX is my XXXX language, and so I rely on and ask family and friends to help me with communications like this. 

In XX/XX/XXXX I received a Notice of Assignment, Sale of Transfer of Servicing Rights from Statebridge Company , LLC that a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  # XXXX was going to be transferred to Statebridge Company , LLC under new loan # XXXX. When I looked at the statement, the debt did not look familiar to me. The statement stated that we were delinquent with {$36000.00} immediately due with an interest rate of 4.250 % and an unpaid principal balance of {$140000.00}. When I consulted with an attorney, he thought that it may be fraud and advised me to respond to Statebridge to request additional information and to let Statebridge know that it was not my debt. I filled out the form that was provided and returned it via mail to Statebridge. 

In XX/XX/XXXX, I received a response from Statebridge that included the name of the original lender, Mortgage It, as well as other documents from XXXX and a payment history for payments to Statebridge. However, this was not the payment history for the entire loan since XXXX. It also stated that the correspondence was a possible enforcement of a XXXX against property. Seeing Mortgage It as the original lender, I recalled that we had a loan that was originally with Mortgage It but it was transferred to XXXX shortly after. Payments were made to Mortgage It and XXXX before my late husband and I filed for bankruptcy in XXXX, and the bankruptcy petition was filed with XXXX as the creditor. The bankruptcy was XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX and thereafter, there were no statements or communications about this loan up until now, which is 13 years later after the bankruptcy discharge. 

XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, who transferred this loan to Statebridge, is the mortgage servicer for my first/primary loan but they never sent any statements for this loan. And XXXX has serviced our first mortgage for several years. 

In XX/XX/XXXX, I mailed correspondence to Statebridge that the loan which originated with Mortgage It looked as if it had been transferred several times and that at the time of the bankruptcy petition and bankruptcy discharge in XXXX the loan was with XXXX. I included copies of the bankruptcy petition and discharge with that package. The statement for the month of XX/XX/XXXX now reflected an interest rate of 9.525 %. The statement also listed the unpaid balance of {$70000.00} and amount due of {$110000.00}. 

In XX/XX/XXXX I received correspondence from Statebridge with the following verbiage While the bankruptcy discharge eliminates the borrowers personal liability for the mortgage debt, it does not wipe out the lien that was recorded against the property. After discharge, the lender still has the right to foreclose on the lien if the borrower is not making payments. If you have additional questions regarding the bankruptcy discharge, please reach out to your bankruptcy attorney for clarification. 

I consulted with the bankruptcy attorney who cited that under Californias Code of Civil Procedure 337, the statute of limitations is four years starting from the date of the first missed payment. In this case it was nearly 13 years since the last missed payment. In XX/XX/XXXX I responded to the communication citing the statute of limitations. I then received a response in XX/XX/XXXX that stated California XXXXvil Code 882.020 ( a ) states that a lien created by a mortgage, deed of trust, or other instrument that secures a loan will expire 10 years after the final maturity date or the last date fixed for payment of the debt or performance of the obligation. The lien is still enforceable. 

Since XXXX is not my first language, I asked a friend to help me in telecommunications with Statebridge and wrote an authorization letter for her to have access and communicate with Statebridge on my behalf. When she obtained clearance from Statebridge and was able to call and speak with them, she found out the name of the point of contact, XXXX XXXX, who asked for a copy of the latest first mortgage statement. He also advised to search the internet for California government housing assistance/funding and to apply for it. A few days later I received correspondence from Statebridge naming XXXX Banks as the point of contact. Upon searching the internet we found that the California Housing Assistance Fund was no longer accepting applications. On one of the calls, XXXX XXXX  indicated that there are other programs out there that provide assistance and that we just need to keep searching. We could not find any. XXXX XXXX  then asked for a hardship letter, which was sent to him. And a few days later, I received a letter stating that my application was received and that it was under review. I was surprised to see that my application was under review because I was never offered/provided any forms to fill out, nor did I fill out any application form. So I wondered what was this application? 

The next correspondence dated XX/XX/XXXX from Statebridge was a NOTICE OF INTENT TO ACCELERATE-LOAN XXXX, which in summary gives until XX/XX/XXXX to cure the loan and failure to do so may result in acceleration, foreclosure and sale. In this letter, the point of contact was changed to XXXX XXXX. Three ( 3 ) copies of this letter was sent to me via certified mail ( 2 ) and regular mail ( 1 ) and three ( 3 ) copies of the letter was also sent to my deceased husband ( 2 via certified mail and 1 via regular mail ). Also three ( 3 ) copies of this letter was sent to me via certified mail ( 2 ) and regular mail ( 1 ) to our attorneys office/mailing address and three ( 3 ) copies of the letter was sent to my deceased husband ( 2 via certified mail and 1 via regular mail ) at our attorneys office/mailing address.

From my experience with Statebridge, they do not try and do not seem to want to help customers find a solution to avoid losing their home. They are poor in communications and have unfair and deceptive practices. In general, I feel that Statebridge should have offered to evaluate my financial situation and allowed me to fill out an actual application form and considered my hardship letter that details my situation and the circumstances of the XXXX  XXXX  that it purchased from XXXX where we were not provided any statements for XXXX years. And I received notice that my application was being reviewed when I didnt complete any application or form. And although I asked in Statebridge my hardship letter for kind consideration to work with me in finding a solution, they did not consider it and instead immediately sent the Notice of Intent to Accelerate. They also raised the interest rate without any rationale behind the increase from 4.250 % to 9.525 %. Notifications of interest rate increases are usually sent with an explanation with respect to the market rates. I am aware of these zombie mortgages and that they are popping up all over the country. It seems as if these mortgage servicing companies like Statebridge are targeting the elderly like me and dont care to help find a middle ground and reasonable solutions to help keep our homes. I feel that Statebridges and the other mortgage servicers goal is to box us into losing our homes through foreclosure or bankruptcy while using unfair, deceptive and abusive practices. 

I request CFPB to investigate Statebridge Company and their unfair, deceptive practices as a mortgage servicing company. They seem to be similar to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, who violated consumer protection laws in Massachusetts by improperly attempting to collect on debts on second-lien mortgages while failing to communicate with borrowers or provide required statements for many years, as well as failing to comply with foreclosure prevention measures. As such they are no longer allowed to collect on these debts.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation