Fairbanks Capital Corp./SPS- Select Portfolio Servicing
GetDShirtz gets email from many people saying that their loan was sold from Fairbanks to SPS. YOUR LOANS WERE NOT SOLD THIS IS THE SAME COMPANY.
A must read for anyone dealing with Fairbanks/SPS is Case No: 1:07-CV-00421-LY-AWA Ellington Credit Fund, LTD and ECF Special Securities, LLC v Select Portfolio Servicing Inc, Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company, MBIA Insurance Corporation, Mountain West Realty Corp., Residential Real Estate Review Inc., Alta Real Estate Services Inc., AND Pelatis Insurance Agency Corp. Cause No. D-1-GN-07-001141 filed in the District Court of Travis County, Texas.
The suit alleges, among other things that Fairbanks/SPS "was not content to make an honest profit from servicing the Subject Loans. Instead, Fairbanks undertook a systematic campaign to boost their profits by dishonest and illegal practices." The suit goes on to specifically lay out that Mountain West Realty Corp., Residential Real Estate Review Inc., Alta Real Estate Services Inc., & Pelatis Insurance Agency Corp., were created and are owned by Fairbanks for the sole purposes of boosting their profits while not actually performing any real function.
This got us here at GetDShirtz wondering if there were any other companies that fall into the same category, even though they may not be part of that particular suit. Here's what we found so far.
Do you think that Select Portfolio Servicing f/k/a Fairbanks Capital Corp. is violating the "Best Practices" agreement made with the FTC when it comes to the servicing of your loan?
If you answered yes, then you are not alone! "Best Practices" refers to an agreement made between the FTC/HUD and Fairbanks, it has nothing to do with the money settlements made as part of the Curry Class Action although both cases were filed in the same Federal Court in Boston.
There seems to be a lot of confusion when it comes to the class actions. The cases in questions were; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Fairbanks Capital Corp., Fairbanks Capital Holding Corp., and Thomas D. Basmajian and Alanna L. Curry, Marlene L. Brenes and Thomas O. White individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Fairbanks Capital Corporation, Defendant. The United States of America case was authorized by the FTC and HUD. Curry et al was brought by regular citizens.
If you happened to be a "certified victim", that is someone whose mortgage loan was serviced by Fairbanks between January 1, 1999 and December, 2003 (referred to as the "class period"), then you received a document called NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND SETTLEMENT HEARING. It seems to me that the root of all the confusion lays within this document as it addressed both the USA v. Fairbanks case and the Curry et al v. Fairbanks case.
Each and every "certified victim" had the right to choose whether or not they would be involved with the Curry Class Action and whether or not they would choose to receive funds from the Redress Fund. However, no one could opt-out of the injunctive relief provided by USA v. Fairbanks. That means that each and every person that has a loan serviced by Fairbanks was to benefit from "best practices" or the new way that Fairbanks was supposed to be doing business.
Aside from all that is the fact that Curry et al ONLY covered the class period, which was between January 1999 and December 2003.
Fairbanks changed its name to Select Portfolio Servicing following the legal actions however THEY ARE STILL BOUND BY THE AGREEMENTS they made. (Please seeThe FTC/HUD Settlement With Fairbanks Capital Corp.)
I have proof that SPS/FB has seriously and consistently violated the terms of injunctive relief pursuant to USA v. Fairbanks after December 2003. I know there are others out there who have proof of the same. I would like to communicate with each and every single person who believes that post December 2003 SPS/FB violated "Best Practices" with regard to the servicing of their mortgage.
Your opt-in/opt-out status from the original class action DOES NOT MATTER.
It DOES NOT MATTER if you are no longer being serviced by SPS.
It DOES NOT MATTER if you have already lost your home.
What matters is whether or not since the inception of the "best practices" agreement SPS complied with the terms of "best practices" with regard to your loan.
We can fight the good fight and REALLY win this time, not just let the lawyers fill their pockets and let the crooks off with a slap on the wrist.