Consumer complaint received 2024-12-24 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage — Application denials
Company: Mr. Cooper Group Inc.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
This is a one of a continuing series of complaints that I have filed over the past year or more against Rushmore Servicing for its continuing extremely poor communication, violations and errors made in the loan modification process. Recently, my application for a loan modification has been denied and the modification process shut down once again by Rushmore Servicing, due to what the company claims are missing documents that have not been provided by me, resulting in what it terms an " incomplete application. '' I strongly dispute this, having provided every document that the company has requested. This is now the third time in the past two years that Rushmore has denied my loan modification application due to what it claims are missing documents. This behavior by Rushmore Servicing is a stalling tactic allowing the company to not modify my loan, even though I continue to be an excellent candidate for a loan modification. Over these past three attempts, time and again, Rushmore Servicing has requested document after document from me, delaying the application process for months. Most of the time, I had already submitted all of the requested documents to Rushmore Servicing, only to have the company request the same documents again and again. My second attempt at a loan modification, in fact, incredibly lasted for nearly the entire year of 2024 before Rushmore decided to unilaterally end the process by stating that my application was " incomplete. '' That decision came after Rushmore actually informed me in writing in XX/XX/year> that my loan modification application was deemed " complete '' and that an actual review of whether I qualified for a loan modification would then commence. I was also orally informed that my application was complete by a Rushmore Servicing representative in a phone conference. Then, mere days after the letter and the phone call, Rushmore Servicing incredibly changed the rules on me again by requesting even more documents before shutting down that particular attempt at a loan modification later in the year. That decision came after I had submitted literally hundreds of documents to Rushmore Servicing in my attempt to have my application submitted for a loan modification review. Many of the documents were submitted two and three times, in fact, to Rushmore. Now, as previously mentioned, Rushmore has denied my third attempt at a loan modification, stating once again that my application is " incomplete '' despite the fact that I submitted all of the necessary documents to the company. My most recent loan modification attempt was made in XX/XX/year> when I submitted a completed loan modification application, including financial documents and a uniform borrower assistance form. Rushmore Servicing then stated these documents had not been submitted after I had, in fact, submitted all the necessary documents, just as I had done in my previous two attempts at a loan modification. As stated previously, this is a continuing pattern of tactics employed by Rushmore Servicing to deny me the opportunity to have my loan modification application accepted and fairly reviewed for a modification. Additionally, in my latest attempt at a loan modification, Rushmore has been violating federal law by dual tracking. They have set three foreclosure sale dates on my property, with yet another one scheduled for XXXX, while supposedly considering me for a loan modification. Under federal law, mortgage services are not allowed to conduct a foreclosure sale on a property that is being considered for a loan modification. Federal law dictates that mortgage servicers are not allowed to even set a date for a foreclosure sale while a consumer is attempting a loan modification, yet Rushmore Servicing has now set three foreclosure sale dates on my property over the past two months, with, as mentioned, another sale date set for XXXX. This is an egregious violation of Federal dual tracking laws by Rushmore Servicing.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation