Consumer complaint received 2017-09-27 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Mortgage debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt was already discharged in bankruptcy and is no longer owed
Company: Seterus, Inc.
State: OH

Complaint narrative:
Seterus sends me a response to a complaint and completely goes around what they have done and the violations in the loan. 


seterus. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, CT XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, OH XXXX Dear XXXX XXXX : Business Hours ( Pacific Time ) Monday-Thursday XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX 
Friday XXXX XXXX. to XXXX XXXX 
Physical Address XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, OR XXXX Payments XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX Correspondence, Inquiries, and Notices XXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX, CT XXXX Phone : XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Loan number : XXXX Serviced by Seterus , Inc . 



On behalf of Seterus, lnc., I am responding to your correspondence submitted to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau regarding the above-referenced loan, which is secured by the collateral property located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX OH XXXX. 
Many of the concerns that you expressed were addressed in correspondence to your former attorney, dated XX/XX/XXXX. I have enclosed a copy of the prior correspondence for your reference. Please be advised that this loan is set up to include the taxes and insurance payment each month as part of the escrow account. There was no treatment on the bankruptcy plan for escrow on this loan. 

" This statement was stated for the reason the reaffirmation agreement agreed on between XXXX XXXX XXXX Trustee and the Lender did not agree for an escrow agreement for taxes and insurance to be placed but set forth the conditions of the reaffirmation to remain the same as the original note which however did state that the investor could set up an escrow to protect their invested interest in the property. 
Now I have two problems with the actions of the loan servicer Seterus and the investor 1. This forced placed insurance policy that was placed on the property was not compliment with the allowed amount under the FDIC banking rules or the CFPB Rules and regulations not even Seterus own policy at which states that they will only enforce enough insurance to cover the investors liability in the loan which was only {$25000.00} not {$150000.00}. This house was appraised in the bankruptcy at only XXXX so this action of the loan servicer to insure this property at XXXX would lead to questions of why would Seterus insure it for so much? '' " Seterus '' We have disbursed funds for applicable taxes and insurance to protect the lien on the property. 

This was not necessary in XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX the property was under a Federal stay in the Chapter XXXX Bankruptcy proceedings. The properties were fully insured with the taxes brought current by an agreement between the debtor and XXXX county Treasurer forthwith in the plan also any insurance premiums that were due was being paid per the plan as directed by XXXX XXXX orders. 

" Seterus '' In order to review the loan to remove the force placed hazard insurance, we would require evidence of sufficient hazard insurance coverage from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX on the property located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, OH XXXX. 

This burden should not be placed on the debtor to show proof of insurance because as indicated in the above paragraph the properties were under a federal stay in XX/XX/XXXX till XX/XX/XXXX and were current to the Debtors confirmed bankruptcy plan with insurance and taxes paid. The lender only created an escrow account to collect the illegal insurance premium from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX and then violated the confirmed bankruptcy plan when they paid off the Federal court order allowed by XXXX XXXX per the agreed tax contract which was current in XX/XX/XXXX to force collection of the illegal insurance premiums placed by the. 

" Seterus '' In addition, the amount of insurance coverage outlined on the enclosed lender placed policy dated XX/XX/XXXX in the amount of {$150000.00} is based on the replacement cost ; not the balance office the loan. 

This statement is correct but the forced place policy not being in the amount to cover the balance of the loan and trying to force the debtor to pay this excessive amount of insurance is not compliant with the CFPB rules and regulations nor the FDIC banking compliance manual XX/XX/XXXX. 

" Seterus '' If you believe the dwelling coverage determination is not accurate, you will need to provide a replacement cost estimator prepared by your insurance agent detailing the calculations used to determine the dwelling coverage. This documentation can by mail to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, TX XXXX or if preferred you may fax the documentation to XXXX. The above statement does not even relate to the CFPB complaint I filed. I believe this statement to be a distraction tactic by the author of this response letter to avoid admitting that the loan serviced by Seterus was and is still in violation of the CFPB rules. The enclosed Proof of Claim from the United States Bankruptcy Court filed with the XXXX County Treasurer does not appear to include the property address at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, OH XXXX that secures this loan. 

I would not because the property is not in XXXX county as listed above the address is in XXXX county. 

" Seterus '' As such in the previous correspondence dated XX/XX/XXXX to your former attorney advised that there was no treatment on the bankruptcy plan for escrow on this loan and that this loan is appropriately set up to include the taxes and insurance payment each month as part of the escrow account. 

This is not a true statement.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation