Consumer complaint received 2019-03-19 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — 
Company: SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX a Deed of Trust ( DOT ) and a promissory note ( NOTE ) for {$550000.00} was executed between myself, the homeowner and XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), a bank that failed in XX/XX/XXXX. A Notice of Default was filed on XX/XX/XXXX, and at the same time an assignment of deed of trust was recorded by XXXX XXXX NA ( XXXX ) in XXXX county recorder office. This assignment shows a transfer to a defunct bank, XXXX XXXX, as trustee when there is no substitution of trustee by the original Bank ( XXXX ), of the DOT as required by section 23 and 24 of the DOT. SEC documents shows that the same deed of Trust was already transferred to XXXX XXXX in XXXX which voids the second transfer with XXXX specially when there is no indication that the specific DOT or NOTE was ever transferred to XXXX by XXXX or any other beneficiary lender. The transfer in XXXX had no assignments recorded/ or unrecorded, endorsements, or " paid to the order of '' anyone, and no value ever paid to the DOT or NOTE. This indicates that XXXX acted with unclean hands and also indicates that XXXX assignment in XXXX is an attempt to restore this deficiency by at least assigning it between third parties interveners to make believe as if these parties are the beneficiary lenders and that the assignment executed according to the DOT agreement. From XXXX to XXXX XXXX requested payment, and in order to keep my house, although a questionable servicer and beneficial lender, I tried to modify and was rejected every time. XXXX attempted to foreclose while stating that there is no sale in the property and then admitted that there were 2 systems ( XXXX and XXXX ) that were giving conflicting information between homeowners and inter-banks, which created a situation of banks foreclosing while informing the homeowners that there is no sale posted. They also admitted that they did not want to modify the loan because the investor is " anxious to sell my property ''. XXXX transferred the alleged servicing of the loan to SPS In XXXX. From XXXX to XXXX I have continually tried to modify and was denied. In several occasions while in modification review, a notice of sale was posted on my house which is to my knowledge, a Dual Trucking violation. I requested from SPS a proof that they have the right to collect on the mortgage but all they sent is the same recorded document of the DOT and NOTE in which none was original and every person can retrieve. They stated that the original DOT is in their vault in XXXX XXXX XXXX and that I can come and see it. Later in Bankruptcy court they admitted that they don't have the DOT or the NOTE in their possession since they are the servicer, but did not issue any original recorded or unrecorded documents from the entity they are servicing for as well. There is no binding agreement established, between XXXX and XXXX XXXX or any of the alleged claimants to the DOT and NOTE even when I filed a complaint with the Department of Business Oversight ( DBO ). In XXXX, XXXX they denied receiving a complaint from the DBO and suddenly " found it '' once the XXXX representative contacted them and instead of replying they continued with the sale date which had me file for bankruptcy to stop it. After dismissing the BK I have submitted to SPS a Request for Mortgage Assistance ( RMA ) to modify and to start paying the verified modified amount they voluntarily paid for on my behalf. I have received a pre-payment plan that had an inflated amount and not a modified amount as requested. I appealed their denial and resubmitted a new RMA based on change of circumstances in Income. SPS in their evaluation indicated that the income is XXXX which was wrong, and in fact income is not a value that they considered in their evaluation. They have based their decision attaching a loan number and information of a different borrower. I resubmitted a new modification on XX/XX/XXXX based on credit score change that was a relevant value in their NPV eligibility calculation, this modification was ignored and was never checked for accuracy or reviewed for eligibility since while in Modification review and prior to the decision rendered on XX/XX/XXXX, the account was already sent out to the foreclosure department on XX/XX/XXXX another Dual Trucking violation. This indicate that they have premeditated a constant decline in the RMA and their anxiousness to foreclose on a house that they did not paid the NOTE value for, that in their Notice To Potential Bidder of the Notice of Sale ( NOS ) they admitted that they are not selling the property only the lien although the NOS is a sale auction of the property not a sale auction of the lien. That they can't show a completed SEC Form 3, initial Statement of Beneficial Ownership of Securities, or a completed SEC Form T-3 for the qualification of an indenture that must be filed with the SEC if indeed this transaction in XXXX was a true one. Right now there are 2 RMA 's that were submitted to the Loss Mitigation department that are completely ignored, an appeal that was submitted on XX/XX/XXXX after the modification was submitted and since they have already transferred my account to the foreclosure department on XX/XX/XXXX it seems as they are once again determined to foreclose and deny the appeal as usual. It is interesting to note that the very certificate holder, had already sued the claimants SPS is servicing for, for fraud and the case was settled. SPS has been misrepresenting itself stating they have the original NOTE and DOT when according to the Bankruptcy documents, they stated that they do not have it in their possession. They misrepresented themselves stating they are reviewing the Modification application when they have already submitted for a legal action, they had posted Notice of Sale on the property when they actually not selling the property only the lien, they misrepresenting that they are representing the security holder of a certificate when this certificate holder sued them for fraud, they have performed Dual Trucking violation by a premeditated decision to foreclose prior a decision made. I have many hours of conversation recorded by consent that would support their misconduct, misrepresentation and wrongdoing.

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