Home > 2015 > Managing Debt

‘Delayed, Harassed & Threatened’: Feds Fine Mortgage Servicer $63M

Advertiser Disclosure Comments 2 Comments

Nationwide mortgage servicing company Green Tree will pay $63 million to settle allegations that it mistreated mortgage holders, federal authorities revealed this week.

According to a statement on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s website, “The mortgage servicer failed to honor modifications for loans transferred from other servicers, demanded payments before providing loss mitigation options, delayed decisions on short sales, and harassed and threatened overdue borrowers.” Further, Green Tree was accused of misleading consumers about their monthly payments, harassing them if they were as little as one day late and forcing them to making payments using a pricey “Speedpay” system. The firm will return $48 million to consumers and pay a $15 million civil penalty; it admitted no wrongdoing.

“Green Tree failed consumers who were struggling by prioritizing collecting payments over helping homeowners,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “When homeowners in distress had their mortgages transferred to Green Tree, their previous foreclosure relief plans were not maintained. We are holding Green Tree accountable for its unlawful conduct.”

Green Tree, based in St. Paul, Minn., has rapidly expanded into the residential mortgage market and services loans for millions of homeowners, in part by buying the rights to service loans from other servicers. The firm was accused of failing to honor mortgage modifications that had been granted to homeowners after it acquired the loans from other financial institutions.

“It’s against the law for a loan servicer to lie about the debts people owe, or threaten and harass people about their debts,” said Jessica Rich, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Working together, the FTC and CFPB are holding Green Tree responsible for mistreating homeowners, including people in financial distress.”

Green Tree did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Credit.com. According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the firm said it is developing and deploying “best practices.”

“We believe this resolution is in the best interest of Green Tree, our consumers, our clients and our shareholders,” CEO Mark J. O’Brien of Walter Investment, Green Tree’s parent company, told the newspaper. “We … continue to be committed to properly serving homeowners and helping them remain in their homes.”

The CFPB and FTC alleged that:

  • In numerous instances, Green Tree took two to six months to respond to consumer requests for short sales. This could have cost consumers potential buyers, and it may also have cost them other loss mitigation alternatives while their short sale requests were pending.
  • If a consumer was two weeks or more past due, Green Tree consumers could receive seven to 20 phone calls a day, some starting as early as 5 a.m. or continuing until as late as 11 p.m. The collectors didn’t limit themselves to home phones, calling some people at work. Some Green Tree representatives also told consumers that nonpayment of their mortgage loan could result in arrest or imprisonment. Or, representatives threatened seizure or garnishment of the consumer’s wages when Green Tree had no intention to take such actions. Such threats are illegal.
  • Green Tree deceived consumers to get them to pay $12 for its pay-by-phone service, called Speedpay. Green Tree representatives would pressure consumers to use the service by telling consumers that Speedpay was the only available payment method to ensure the payment would be received on time. In fact, Green Tree accepted other payment methods that do not involve a fee, such as checks and ACH payments. Green Tree also made payments from consumers’ bank accounts without their authorization. For example, homeowners who gave Green Tree their account numbers to set up a one-time payment through Speedpay later discovered the company had used the information to arrange for additional payments without their consent.
  • Green Tree furnished consumers’ credit information to consumer reporting agencies when it knew, or had reasonable cause to believe, that the information was inaccurate, and failed to correct the information after determining that it was incomplete or inaccurate. (Consumers are entitled to free copies of their credit report every year from each of the major credit reporting agencies to ensure that they are accurate.)
  • Green Tree told consumers they owed fees they did not owe, or that they had to make higher monthly payments than their mortgage contracts required.

The order would also require Green Tree to end the alleged mortgage servicing violations, honor the prior loss mitigation agreements, take efforts to help homeowners preserve their home and provide quality customer service, according to the release.

More on Managing Debt:

Image: iStock

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

  • woodwardbarb

    this makes me sic. but i think there is more to this and a lot more companies doing this. shame on them this is why the middle class is hurting so badly.

  • sherry

    Where do I file a claim, they promised me a re-modification, as I lost my job of 29 years but they said I had to wait until February and when February came they said I didnt qualify, also the $12.00 Speed pay and NUMEROUS calls to my employer which they were told DO NOT CALL. Not to mention when I told them I had to take care of electric bill they said I should have paid them and sat in the dark, would I rather be homeless they asked VERY RUDE on the phone ALWAYS.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team