Consumer complaint received 2026-05-26 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan
Company: PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint against PennyMac Loan Services , LLC concerning wrongful foreclosure, deceptive debt collection, failure to provide account information, unauthorized borrower substitution on a recorded mortgage document, and multiple servicing violations related to the property at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Florida XXXX. BACKGROUND TRUST OWNERSHIP The property was conveyed by recorded Warranty Deed ( Doc # XXXX, recorded XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX, Florida ) to THE XXXX XXXX REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST for a consideration of {$340000.00}. The Trust was created on XX/XX/XXXX under Chapter XXXX of the New York XXXX XXXX XXXX and Trusts Law, naming XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Trustee. The Trust instrument lists the Trustees address as XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Florida XXXX the same property now subject to foreclosure. See Exhibit A ( Warranty Deed ) and Exhibit F ( Trust Instrument ). VIOLATION 1 ORIGINAL MORTGAGE CORRECTLY NAMES THE TRUST The original mortgage recorded as Doc # XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX in XXXX XXXX, Florida, with a principal balance of {$220000.00}, expressly identifies the Borrower as THE XXXX XXXX REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST not XXXX XXXX individually. The original lender was XXXX and XXXX Mortgage Corp., with MERS as mortgagee nominee. The mortgage package also included an XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX a standard Fannie Mae addendum specifically used when the borrower is a living trust confirming the lender knew from Day 1 this was a trust loan. See Exhibit G ( Original Mortgage ) and Exhibit I ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ). VIOLATION 2 PENNYMAC FRAUDULENTLY SUBSTITUTED THE BORROWER ON A RECORDED DOCUMENT Despite the above, PennyMac prepared and recorded a Loan Modification Agreement ( Doc # XXXX, recorded XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX, Florida ), naming XXXX XXXX individually as XXXX completely stripping the Trust designation. The modification reset the loan to a New Principal Amount of {$230000.00}. PennyMac had full actual knowledge that the Trust was the proper borrower because it held the original mortgage, the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and the recorded deed. By stripping the Trust and substituting XXXX XXXX individually on a publicly recorded document, PennyMac created a title defect, clouded the Trusts title to its own property, and laid the foundation for a defective foreclosure action. This constitutes a fraudulent and unauthorized modification of a recorded mortgage instrument in violation of Florida Statute XXXX and the Consumer Financial Protection Act, XXXX U.S.C. XXXX. See Exhibit G ( Original Mortgage Trust is Borrower ), Exhibit H ( Loan Modification XXXX XXXX individually substituted ), Exhibit I ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX lender knew this was a trust loan ). VIOLATION 3 FORECLOSURE FILED AGAINST THE WRONG PARTY On or about XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX through its foreclosure counsel filed a foreclosure action in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Case No. XXXX, naming XXXX XXXX individually XXXX defendant not XXXX XXXX as Trustee of The XXXX XXXX Revocable Living Trust . The property is owned by the Trust. The original mortgage borrower is the Trust. XXXX XXXX individually does not own the property and is not the borrower under the original loan instruments. PennyMac sued the wrong party, which constitutes a false representation in connection with the collection of a debt in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, XXXX XXXX. XXXX, and wrongful initiation of foreclosure proceedings against an individual who has no personal liability on the subject debt. See Exhibit A XXXX XXXX Deed XXXX owns property ), Exhibit B ( Foreclosure Summons names XXXX XXXX individually ), Exhibit F ( Trust Instrument ), Exhibit G ( Original Mortgage Trust is Borrower ). VIOLATION 4 {$220000.00} UNEXPLAINED ACCOUNTING DISCREPANCY On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX own collection counsel, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, sent a written communication stating the total debt owed was {$23000.00}. Just 35 days later, on XX/XX/XXXX, PennyMacs records reflected a payoff amount of {$240000.00}. This creates an unexplained discrepancy of {$220000.00} between two of PennyMacs own figures produced within 35 days of each other. PennyMac has never provided any written explanation, reconciliation, or itemized accounting for this discrepancy. This discrepancy may reflect unauthorized fees, force-placed insurance, improper escrow charges, or fabricated balance additions all of which constitute unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices under the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX, and servicing violations under RESPA, XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX ). See Exhibit C ( XX/XX/XXXX Debt Letter {$23000.00} ) and Exhibit D ( XX/XX/XXXX Seller Net Sheet {$240000.00} ). VIOLATION XXXX FAILURE TO RESPOND TO QUALIFIED WRITTEN REQUEST AND ATTORNEY OF RECORD On XX/XX/XXXX, the Trust executed a Letter of Authorization designating XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. as its authorized attorney for all matters related to the loan and property. Attorney XXXX has represented this Trust since its creation in XX/XX/XXXX his name and address appear on the Trust instrument itself as the XXXX mailing address. Despite formal notification of attorney representation, PennyMac failed to communicate with Attorney XXXX, failed to respond to information requests submitted on behalf of the Trust, and continued collection and foreclosure activity without resolving any of the outstanding disputes. Under the FDCPA, XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) ( 2 ), once a debt collector knows the consumer is represented by an attorney, it must cease all direct contact with the consumer and communicate exclusively through counsel. XXXX violated this requirement. See Exhibit XXXX ( Letter of Authorization to XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. ) and Exhibit F ( Trust Instrument listing XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. as XXXX mailing address ). VIOLATION XXXX FAILURE TO COMPLETE LOSS MITIGATION REVIEW BEFORE FORECLOSURE / DUAL TRACKING Under Regulation X, XXXX C.F.R. XXXX, a servicer may not make the first notice or filing required for foreclosure while a loss mitigation application is pending, and must complete a full loss mitigation review before proceeding. The Trust formally requested loss mitigation options through its attorney on XX/XX/XXXX. PennyMac provided no response and continued pursuing foreclosure. Additionally, PennyMac filed foreclosure less than 11 months after executing and recording its own Loan Modification Agreement ( XX/XX/XXXX XXXX # XXXX ), without completing any loss mitigation review. This dual-tracking violation simultaneously pursuing foreclosure while loss mitigation was pending is expressly prohibited under Regulation X XXXX ( g ). See Exhibit B ( Foreclosure Summons XX/XX/XXXX ), Exhibit XXXX ( Loss Mitigation Request via Attorney XXXX ), Exhibit H ( Loan Modification XX/XX/XXXX, less than 11 months prior ). VIOLATION XXXX FAILURE TO PRODUCE NOTE AND CHAIN OF ASSIGNMENT The original mortgage was originated by XXXX and XXXX Mortgage XXXX with MERS as nominee. PennyMac now claims the right to foreclose, but has not produced the original promissory note, a complete and unbroken chain of assignments from XXXX and XXXX through XXXX to PennyMac, or any documentation establishing its standing as the holder or owner of the note. The Trust formally requested this documentation through its attorney. PennyMac did not respond. Under Florida law, a foreclosing party must establish that it holds or owns the note at the time of filing. Failure to respond to this request separately violates RESPA XXXX ( XXXX ) and Regulation X XXXX. See Exhibit XXXX ( document request via Attorney XXXX ), Exhibit G ( Original Mortgage XXXX and XXXX / MERS ), Exhibit B ( Foreclosure Summons ). VIOLATION XXXX PREMATURE FORECLOSURE LESS THAN 11 MONTHS AFTER LOAN MODIFICATION PennyMacs own Loan Modification Agreement dated XX/XX/XXXX reset the loan to a New Principal Amount of {$230000.00}. PennyMac filed foreclosure on approximately XX/XX/XXXX less than 11 months later without completing any loss mitigation review, without clarifying the borrower identity, and without explaining the {$220000.00} accounting discrepancy. Any alleged default can only be calculated from after XX/XX/XXXX. The XX/XX/XXXX debt letter claiming {$23000.00} is consistent with approximately 910 months of alleged missed payments after the modification yet PennyMac simultaneously claimed {$240000.00} as payoff. PennyMac initiated foreclosure on a recently modified loan, against the wrong party, without accounting reconciliation, and without completing the mandatory loss mitigation review required under Regulation X. See Exhibit H ( Loan Modification ), Exhibit C ( Debt Letter {$23000.00} ), Exhibit D ( Seller Net Sheet {$240000.00} ), Exhibit B ( Foreclosure Summons

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation