Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc Mortgage Complaint

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc Mortgage department,

Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM) Loan modification,collection,foreclosure Ohio

Select Portfolio Servicing , Inc. continues to evade simple, basic questions I have posed to them regarding the validity of my mortgage debt, and instead, is relying on twisted words, half-truths, incomplete answers and non-answers in a desperate attempt to hide the truth. Specifically, I sent via Certified Mail, and SPS rec 'd on - -, a formal 'Dispute of Validation of Debt ' and in short, the reply from SPS was wholly inadequate. As - case in point, federal law requires that the debt collector ( SPS ) provide the true identity of the 'creditor ', and yet, all I rec 'd was a jumbled mess of a paragraph that tries to say that - is the 'noteholder ' - a claim that - Bank has formally denied - and that SPS is the 'servicer ', and that my note is 'secured with other notes traded on - - ''.


Additionally, another requirement in a reply regarding a dispute of debt is for the debt collector to clearly identify who the original creditor is ( or was ). SPS also failed to make clear the simple answer to that question. In response to an earlier complaint to - Bank, SPS wrote on - -, - that " the 'owner ', sometimes also referred to as 'investor ', 'creditor ', and/or 'note holder ' '' is in fact - Bank. In their - -, - reply, SPS clearly implies that all of those terms mean the same thing ( see attached ). However, in clear contrast to that assertion, - Bank says it in fact is NOT the owner ( which also according to SPS means it is not the 'creditor ' nor the 'note holder ' ), and that instead, some unnamed 'Trust ' is the actual 'owner of the mortgage and note ' ( see attached ). Accordingly, I still do n't have a clear answer as to who the actual 'owner/creditor ' is, despite filing a formal dispute of the Validation of Debt with the debt collector. In addition, SPS failed to answer the vast majority of the questions I asked relative to the origination of the debt, and who was in fact the actual creditor ( or lender ) to begin with ( see attached list of questions contained in the 'Dispute of Validation of Debt and Qualified Written Request '. All I rec 'd was another copy of the Mortgage and Note, which shows - - - as the 'Lender ', but without further detail regarding whose money Encore was actually lending, there is no evidence whatsoever that Encore was actually a 'true creditor ' in the first place. The information is needed to determine if this case fits the same fact pattern as -, - - -, - WL - ( - - -, - ), and all indications are that it does.