Consumer complaint received 2026-06-11 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — VA mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan
Company: CMG Financial Services, Inc.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am an active-duty United States XXXX XXXX currently XXXX overseas in XXXX, XXXX, as shown in my active-duty orders. I am filing this formal complaint against CMG Mortgage and its subservicer XXXX XXXX to address systemic servicing errors and demand a retroactive correction of my mortgage payment deferment start date. Specifically, I am requesting that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau direct my servicer to backdate my mortgage deferment under the California Military Families Financial Relief Act, California Military and Veterans Code Section 800 et seq., to the statutory start date of XX/XX/XXXX, which is the official report date on my military orders. This retroactive adjustment is legally required and is necessary to correct extensive processing delays caused by XXXX 's unauthorized use of offshore personnel. Because my monthly mortgage payments are due on the XXXX of each month, correcting my deferment start date to XX/XX/XXXX, means that my first deferred installment should have been the payment due on XX/XX/XXXX, rather than XX/XX/XXXX. This corrected timeline will establish my first 365-day statutory deferment period as running from XX/XX/XXXX, through XX/XX/XXXX, with the first 180-day deferment cycle concluding on XX/XX/XXXX. This reset is critical because my military orders have been officially extended through XX/XX/XXXX, as documented in my amended active-duty orders. Under California Military and Veterans Code Section 800 ( g ), a corrected start date of XX/XX/XXXX, will enable me to legally claim a second 180-day deferment allotment starting XX/XX/XXXX, to protect my mortgage during the extended period of my active military service, covering my monthly installments due on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I used the secure messaging portal to notify XXXX and XXXXMG of my upcoming XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I submitted my official active-duty orders, Orders XXXX, confirming that I was called to federal active service from XX/XX/XXXX, through XX/XX/XXXX. Despite having my XXXX orders on file, the servicer failed to perform its basic servicing duties, did not act in a timely manner, and failed to notify me of my statutory mortgage relief rights under California law. As a result of their failure to inform me of these protections, I was forced to conduct my own legal research. On XX/XX/XXXX, I submitted a formal written request via the secure portal for a 180-day principal and interest deferment under the California Military Families Financial Relief Act, as documented in my initial deferment requests. Instead of processing this request within the 30-day statutory window, XXXX 's offshore representatives placed unlawful administrative barriers on my account, demanding wet signatures and commanding officer letters. My deferment was only approved on XX/XX/XXXX, after I escalated the matter through CFPB Complaint XXXX, which was noted in the XX/XX/XXXX interest rate cap confirmation letter. Upon approval, the servicer unilaterally delayed the start date of my deferment to XX/XX/XXXX, concluding on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, the Department of the Army issued Amended Orders XXXX, extending my active-duty service through XX/XX/XXXX, as shown in my amended active-duty orders. The extensive delays and servicing errors on my account are a direct result of XXXX XXXX 's decision to outsource its secure portal communications and SCRA compliance functions to foreign contractors in XXXX, as referenced in my previous CFPB filings. My file was handled by offshore representatives identified as XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX, who demonstrated a complete lack of familiarity with United States military protections. These offshore agents repeatedly gave inaccurate information, demanded non-statutory documents, and incorrectly claimed that the California deferment program required government funds. This outsourcing model directly violates several federal and state laws. First, it violates the VA Servicer Handbook M26-4, XXXX XXXX, which explicitly mandates that SCRA matters and military loans must be handled by staff who are knowledgeable and trained in military protections. Second, it violates Regulation X, specifically 12 C.F.R. Section 1024.38 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( i ) through ( iv ), which requires mortgage servicers to maintain competent, trained, and knowledgeable personnel who can assist borrowers with legal protections, including military relief statutes. Third, it violates the Department of Justice SCRA Enforcement Guidance of 2020, which explicitly establishes that creditors and mortgage servicers can not outsource SCRA compliance liability to third-party or offshore entities. Finally, because XXXX refused to allow secure message access to trained U.S.-based personnel, I was forced, while XXXX overseas, to make costly international phone calls to reach onshore staff who understood the law, violating the federal standards for Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices under 12 U.S.C. Section 5531 and Section 5536. Under California Military and Veterans Code Section 800 ( b ), the deferment period shall begin on the date of the request or the date on which the reservist is called to XXXX XXXX, whichever is later. I submitted my orders as a written request on XX/XX/XXXX, and my active-duty start date was XX/XX/XXXX. Under Section 800 ( b ), the later date is July 9, 2025, which makes July 9, 2025, the mandatory, legally required start date of my deferment. Furthermore, under California Military and Veterans Code Section 800 ( g ), a reservist is eligible for mortgage deferment for up to 180 days during any 365-day period. Backdating my first deferment to XX/XX/XXXX, establishes my first 365-day cycle as XX/XX/XXXX, through XX/XX/XXXX. Under this timeline, a second 365-day cycle commences on XX/XX/XXXX. Because my active-duty service is extended through XX/XX/XXXX, I remain on XXXX XXXX at the start of this second cycle, as shown in my amended active-duty orders. Retroactive backdating to XX/XX/XXXX, is legally required and represents the only pathway to allow me to utilize a second 180-day deferment allotment under the statute starting on XX/XX/XXXX, which will cover my mortgage payments due on XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, protecting me from payment default during my extended XXXX.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation