NMRLD FID

Official Complaints

This is where you will find the complaints I have submitted relating to the evidence I have collected (evidence documents are available to paid subscribers)

Complaint Against Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (SPS) To the New Mexico Regulation and Licensing Department/Financial Institutions Division for Exceeding its Collection Agency Licensing
  1. Introduction

This complaint is submitted against Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (“SPS”) for apparent violations of New Mexico law arising from SPS’s conduct in connection with the foreclosure and post-foreclosure handling of real property located in Santa Cruz, New Mexico (Case No. D-101-CV-2013-00904, the “Property”) and other properties.

SPS holds only a Collection Agency license and one of its employees holds a Mortgage Loan Originator license in New Mexico. These licenses do not authorize SPS to control foreclosure litigation, direct Special Master sales, engage in real estate brokerage, direct appraisals/broker price opinions, or transaction coordination, manage property, or practice law. SPS has nevertheless engaged in many of these activities.

SPS’s conduct raises substantial concerns under the Collection Agency Regulatory Act (NMSA § 61-18A), the Mortgage Loan Company Act (NMSA § 58-21), New Mexico real estate broker licensing laws (NMSA § 61-29 and 16.61 NMAC), and the prohibition on the unauthorized practice of law as set forth in State ex rel. Norvell v. Credit Bureau of Albuquerque, Inc., 1973-NMSC-087; see also Attorney General Opinion 74-28.

Complainant requests a full investigation, findings of violations, civil penalties, license sanctions, referral for unauthorized practice of law enforcement, and such other relief as the Department deems appropriate.

  1. Parties

Complainant Marcelina Martinez is an individual who has an interest in the Property and has been directly affected by SPS’s conduct.

Respondent SPS is a corporation licensed in New Mexico as a collection agency and mortgage loan originator company. SPS services mortgage loans and handles post-foreclosure REO properties in New Mexico, including the Property.

  1. Jurisdiction and Authority

The New Mexico Regulation and Licensing Department, through its Financial Institutions Division and Real Estate Commission, has jurisdiction to investigate and take disciplinary action against holders of collection agency, mortgage loan company, and real estate broker licenses for violations of New Mexico statutes and rules. SPS’s activities in New Mexico fall squarely within this authority.

  1. Factual Allegations
  1. SPS directed the foreclosure process on the Property through its own attorneys and the court-appointed Special Master. SPS provided a “bid instructions worksheet” to its attorneys that dictated the exact bid amount and title-vesting language to be used at the Special Master’s sale. The Special Master’s documents were drafted by SPS’s attorneys. The special master(s), relying on email instructions, executes “Special Master’s” deeds believing the email with bid amount is evidence of debt satisfaction.
  2. In discovery in an IPRA lawsuit, a Special Master admitted that the only document he relied upon to execute a deed was an email from the servicer’s attorney’s paralegal.
  3. At the foreclosure “sale” of a related property – 186 Nine Mile Road – a different special master admitted that the attorneys draft all documents, which he signs. See link: https://bit.ly/JayHarrisFCSaleSPS.
  4. On February 27, 2021 – prior to the alleged Special Master’s sale on March 3, 2021, and while legal title remained vested in Complainant – SPS employee Matthew Romrell assigned the property to realtor Isabel Valdez through the Exceleras platform. Valdez’s first documented visit occurred around May 19, 2021, months before any MWR referral/fee agreement existed and months before the alleged sale was confirmed or the redemption period had expired.
  5. SPS uses the Exceleras platform to direct realtors and other third parties to perform activities that are reserved for licensed real estate brokers under New Mexico law. These activities include assigning and managing inspections, valuations, maintenance, lockouts, trash-outs, and coordinating with law enforcement regarding writs of assistance. SPS directs these individuals and entities to engage in such activities despite the fact that many of them lack any legitimate contract, grant of authority, or proper licensing to perform them in New Mexico. For example, realtors are directed to facilitate writs of assistance with sheriffs based solely on MWR referral agreements that do not confer actual authority over the property. Similarly, individuals and companies (including convicted felons) are directed to take possession of and dispose of personal property and perform “winterization” and other preservation work without licenses or insurance.
  6. SPS used its affiliate Mountain West Realty (MWR), Dennis Cook principal broker (unlicensed in New Mexico) to refer the Property to local realtors in exchange for substantial referral fees (25–43.75% of commission plus a $150 Exceleras “tech fee”). SPS represented to realtors that the MWR fee agreement gave them authority to engage with sheriffs to facilitate writs of assistance and take possession of the Property, even though no actual grant of authority existed from the property owner or a court-appointed receiver.
  7. SPS directs vendors, including Safeguard Properties and intermediaries such as Runtel Services, LLC (a Colorado company not registered or licensed to do business in New Mexico), to perform lockouts and trash-outs. A convicted felon with an active bench warrant (Bobby Shaw – through his son Jeremiah Shaw) was used to carry out at least one such lockout and is regularly directed to perform “winterization” and other property preservation activities. Shaw holds no licenses and no insurance.
  8. SPS employees have directly instructed foreclosure counsel on litigation steps. For example, on October 18, 2022, SPS Eviction Specialist Christopher Plantier emailed Aldridge Pite instructing the firm to “Please DO NOT send to sheriff for execution at this time” because the property was in “LIT status,” and later reversed course and instructed them to “Please send to sheriff for execution.” In another communication, SPS Legal directed the firm to “proceed to lockout.” These instructions were given by SPS employees rather than by the nominal plaintiff or its counsel exercising independent judgment.
  9. The Plaintiff in the foreclosure case on the Property and two other related properties is named as “Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as trustee” for [securitized/MBS trusts]. According to public announcements, Computershare acquired “substantially all” of WFBNA’s corporate trust services as of November of 2021; however, SPS continues to claim to act on its behalf. Computershare claims to be an “agent” of WFBNA in relation to the subject property but has failed to explain its capacity.
  10. SPS has never provided Complainant with a cancelled promissory note or tax documents showing that the underlying debt was satisfied. SPS and Computershare continue to refer to an active “account” or “mortgage loan” on the subject Property long after the foreclosure sale.
  11. SPS has engaged in substantially similar conduct on other New Mexico properties, demonstrating a systemic pattern.
  12. Violations

Count 1: Exceeding the Scope of SPS’s Collection Agency License and Raising Concerns Under Unauthorized Practice of Law Principles

SPS’s Collection Agency license does not authorize it to control litigation or insert itself into the attorney-client relationship. The evidence shows that SPS exercised significant operational control over the foreclosure process, including providing detailed bid instructions to the Special Master and coordinating with foreclosure counsel.

To the extent SPS directed the bid amount and terms for the Special Master’s sale, instructed counsel regarding legal filings, or effectively controlled key decisions in the foreclosure process while the nominal plaintiff exercised little independent authority, such conduct raises substantial concerns under State ex rel. Norvell v. Credit Bureau of Albuquerque, Inc., 1973-NMSC-087, regarding the unauthorized practice of law. See also Attorney General Opinion 74-28.

SPS’s control over the foreclosure process is further demonstrated by its direct instructions to foreclosure counsel regarding the timing and execution of writs and lockouts. SPS employees have instructed the law firm when to send matters to the sheriff for execution and when to hold or proceed with lockouts. This level of direction over litigation steps, combined with SPS’s control over bid instructions and post-foreclosure activities, and influence on property valuation, raises substantial concerns that SPS is exercising control over legal decisions that should be made by the client or its licensed counsel.

Count 2: Engaging in Unlicensed Real Estate Brokerage and Transaction Coordination

SPS’s licenses do not authorize real estate brokerage, property management, or transaction coordination. SPS has nevertheless:

  • Operates spsreo.com and directs REO marketing and auctions;
  • Enters into Listing Agreements naming itself as Seller;
  • Directs realtors and vendors through Exceleras and MWR referral agreements;
  • Assigns inspections, maintenance, lockouts, and trash-outs; and
  • Instructs realtors during active litigation and represents that MWR referral agreements authorize realtors to facilitate writs of assistance with local sheriffs.

These activities require a New Mexico real estate broker license under NMSA § 61-29 and 16.61 NMAC.

SPS’s direction of these activities is further evidenced by its pre-sale assignment of the Santa Cruz property to realtor Isabel Valdez on February 27, 2021, while title remained vested in Complainant and Valdez had no relationship to the alleged “plaintiff/purchaser” or even SPS. SPS has used the Exceleras platform – a tool specifically marketed for the accelerated disposition of foreclosed properties – to direct and coordinate real estate activities that require a broker license. SPS has directed realtors to perform these activities without any legitimate contract or grant of authority from the alleged property owner. SPS has also directed unlicensed individuals and entities, including convicted felons, to engage in property preservation and management activities such as winterization, lock changes, and disposal of personal property without proper licensing or insurance in New Mexico.

Count 3: Defective Authority, Misrepresentations, and Failure to Provide Proper Documentation

SPS has relied on expired or nonexistent authority. SPS continues to represent that an active “account” or “mortgage loan” exists and that Wells Fargo holds title to the loan, not the real property, while never providing a cancelled promissory note or tax documents to the borrower. The following publication explains further why this situation is logical in the context of securitized trusts and foreclosure: https://bit.ly/REMICIRSRegulator.

In addition, the Powers of Attorney SPS relies upon became further compromised by events occurring after their execution. In 2021, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. sold substantially all of its Corporate Trust Services business to Computershare Trust Company, N.A. This transfer calls into serious question the continued validity of the authority SPS claims to operate under. SPS has continued to direct foreclosure and REO activities on the Property and other properties long after this transaction, despite the lack of clear, current authority from the nominal Trustee. With regards to the Property, there is no evidence on any public record that SPS ever had authority to act on behalf of the stated trust (Harborview 2007-1) and none has ever been produced or provided.

Moreover, under IRS rules governing Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits (REMICs), a trust generally may not hold real property acquired through foreclosure for more than three years (with a possible one-year extension under limited circumstances). Two of the properties at issue have remained in REO status well beyond these timeframes, yet SPS continues to direct preservation, marketing, and disposition activities as though it retains valid authority from the nominal Trustee and REMIC trust, further calling into question SPS’s authority.

Count 4: Self-Dealing Through Affiliated Entities

SPS routes work through its affiliates MWR and RRR for referral fees and BPOs, creating undisclosed self-dealing as well as profiting from the same properties its affiliate “appraises”. On information and belief this relationship violates the Uniform Licensing Act and Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP).

Count 5: Improper Vendor Oversight and Direction of Unlicensed and High-Risk Entities

SPS directs realtors, vendors, and other third parties to perform property management, preservation, lockout, valuation, and eviction-related activities without ensuring they are properly licensed or authorized to do so in New Mexico. SPS has directed convicted felons and companies not registered to transact business in New Mexico to take possession of personal property and perform preservation activities such as winterization. SPS has directed realtors to engage with the property before any transfer of or alleged transfer of title without any authority to do so. SPS also represents to realtors that MWR referral agreements confer authority to facilitate writs of assistance with local sheriffs, when no such authority actually exists.

SPS continued to direct realtor Leland Titus (whose Qualifying Broker licenses were permanently revoked in June 2024) and his associate Tory Knight (whose license became statutorily inactive) to engage in real estate activities and obtain Broker Price Opinions well after the revocations. These BPOs, which were used to help establish pricing for the Property, were produced by SPS’s affiliate, Residential Real Estate Review (RRR). The BPOs listed “Bank of America National Association” as the client despite BANA having no apparent connection to the loan or trust. RRR does not appear to have any licensed appraisers in New Mexico, and the BPOs contain no disclosure of RRR’s involvement or its affiliation with SPS.

These facts raise substantial concerns that SPS and/or its affiliate may be engaging in activities that constitute unlicensed real estate appraisal work and that SPS’s use of its own affiliated entity to produce valuations used to set the sale price of properties creates a serious conflict of interest. SPS does not appear to maintain adequate procedures to verify that the individuals and entities it directs are properly licensed, independent, or authorized to perform the activities assigned to them.

Count 6: Violations Related to Personal Property

SPS and its directed vendors have a pattern of removing and disposing of personal property without following the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act.

  • Pattern and Practice

The above conduct reflects a systemic business model in which SPS, while holding only limited servicing and collection licenses, operates a vertically integrated foreclosure-to-REO pipeline. This includes directing unlicensed or unauthorized individuals and entities to perform property preservation, lockouts, and eviction-related activities, and representing that referral agreements confer authority to engage with law enforcement, which law enforcement rely upon to engage and remove occupants. This model contravenes SPS’s licenses and harms New Mexico consumers.

SPS has engaged in substantially similar conduct on other New Mexico properties, including 80 Paseo de Angel and 186 Nine Mile Rd in Santa Fe County. In those matters, SPS likewise directed foreclosure and post-foreclosure REO activities, used affiliated entities for referrals and valuations, and relied on questionable or stale authority. This demonstrates a systemic pattern of exceeding the scope of its licenses across multiple properties.

  • Harm

Complainant has suffered clouded title to the Property, loss of income, expedited disposition of personal property, inability to obtain documentation confirming debt satisfaction, and ongoing uncertainty. SPS’s conduct harms not only Complainant but similarly situated New Mexico consumers and exposes public entities and law enforcement to potential liability.

Although SPS has publicly claimed to help homeowners retain their homes, its use of the Exceleras platform, which is specifically designed and marketed to accelerate the disposition of foreclosed properties, along with the actions it has taken in relation to the Property, demonstrates a business model focused on fast-tracking REO sales rather than loss mitigation.

  • Evidence
  • (Ex. A) Exceleras portal notes and task assignments by SPS employees, including the following named employees: Matthew Romrell, Komal Krishna Sahoo, Harini Priya, Conrad Stribakos, Pooja Krishnamurthy, Julio Martinez, Suma Tamanampudi, Nafiz Munazir, Lisa Yeates, Krithika Manickavasagam, Christopher Plantier, Nethra Kumaraswamy, Jeaneen Chandler, Hanumanthappa Dasappa, and Randall Wessman.
  • (Ex. B) Bid instructions worksheet and Special Master communications and admissions.
  • (Ex. C) 2011 Power of Attorney and post-2021 deed on 186 Nine Mile Rd., Santa Fe property involving SPS.
  • (Ex. D) 2013 Power of Attorney and current auction of 80 Paseo de Angel, Santa Fe property involving SPS.
  • (Ex. E) Complainant’s Qualified Written Request with SPS’s December 2025 letter attached, and Computershare February 2026 response.
  • (Ex. F) MWR referral/fee agreements.
  • (Ex. G) 2018 6 Plaza Mollens Listing Agreement and SPS email to Isabel Valdez.
  • (Ex. H) Property Preservation Notices and related eviction documents.
  • (Ex. I) Public corporate filings.
  • (Ex. J) Two BPOs on the Property, obtained after the Titus/SFRU license was permanently revoked.
  • (Ex. K) Screenshots of dropdown task menu (Exceleras Overview Video). See link: https://bit.ly/ExcelerasOverview.
  • (Ex. L) Discovery responses from realtor Isabel Valdez stating that she received direction from Aldridge Pite LLP (the law firm that was directed by SPS).
  • Public announcements regarding Wells Fargo’s sale of its Corporate Trust Services. Links: https://bit.ly/WFBNA-Computershare; https://bit.ly/CSWFBNAAcquisition
  • Additional evidence is available upon request.
  • Request for Relief

Complainant respectfully requests that the Financial Institutions Division:

  1. Open a formal investigation into SPS’s New Mexico operations;
  2. Find that SPS has exceeded the scope of its Collection Agency and Mortgage Loan Originator licenses;
  3. Find that SPS and its affiliate MWR has engaged in unlicensed real estate brokerage and transaction coordination and refer to the proper authorities;
  4. Investigate whether SPS exercised control over litigation decisions in a manner that raises concerns under State ex rel. Norvell v. Credit Bureau of Albuquerque, Inc.;
  5. Impose civil penalties, suspend or revoke SPS’s licenses, and order such other sanctions as are appropriate;
  6. Refer the unauthorized practice of law issues to the Attorney General and/or Disciplinary Board of the New Mexico Supreme Court;
  7. Require SPS to provide corrective documentation (including cancelled notes) and other relief to affected borrowers;
  8. Require SPS to provide evidence of authority it has relied upon to take the actions associated with the Property and related properties.
  9. Seek temporary and preliminary injunctive relief to halt further disposition of affected properties pending investigation;
  10. Investigate or direct to the proper authority to investigate whether SPS or its affiliate, Residential Real Estate Review (RRR), is engaging in unlicensed real estate appraisal activity and whether SPS’s use of its own affiliated entity to produce valuations used to establish property pricing creates a conflict of interest in violation of New Mexico law; and
  11. Grant such other and further relief as the Department deems just and proper.

Supporting Evidence – Available to Paid Subscribers