The complaint has been investigated and
resolved to the customer's satisfaction
US Loss Mitigation OR Schultz and Schultzmitigation scam

After having submitted several foreclosure cases to uslm & paying their fees, we were alerted to new "policies" today. The policy is anything over 60days old requires either you the agent ot take the file over and work it yourself or pay "$250" additional fees to have them continue to wrok the case. However, this only applies to bulk submission, not a case by case submission which is the way we submit anyway - case by case! This is unfair and unjust! They should never, never try to ask for more fees after half way working a file and our mitigation company has already submitted their fee to them. Not to mention, these files were submitted months ago and some of which uslm has failed to work after verifing with the clients lender! I personally ahve made phone calls to my clients lenders only to find out parts of the pkg were still missing! There is a huge lack of mis-communication all together! I am now faced with trying to pick up the pieces, call these lenders myself to save my clients from foreclosure. I think Schultz (uslossmitigation) owes me and my clients a re-fund! I recommend doing your own cases with good training. Don't trust these so called mitigation companies to do it for you!


  • Mi
    Michele May 05, 2009

    I also am owed money from USLM for a case closed in February. I received the same response from Stan Schultz stating the he has cash problems and until that is resolved he will not pay me.

    0 Votes
  • Op
    Operations Director May 08, 2009

    The complaint is incorrect and has no foundation related to the merits of their specifics concerns. The US Loss Mitigation operation formerly provided services directly for the homeowners and provided agreements that were signed by the homeowners that provided the specific terms of our arrangement to assist them. The agreements were signed by homeowners and never related to bulk cases submissions. The agreement provided, in the event our casework would exceed 60 days, we were provided an hourly rate to offset these costs.

    In the past the time to complete a case rarely exceeded 60 days, however today we experience cases exceeding 60 to 365 days to complete. Moreover, this has much to do with the current financial markets and causal effects, for example, unemployment, sub-prime crisis, housing values, and depressed real estate markets to mention a few. It is extremely difficult to work a case over a year's time for $137.50 to $395 - that's $1.08 a day. We have to maintain competent staffing to ensure the value and professionalism of the work is being adhered to for our client.

    Currently our office does not provide services directly to homeowners. In contrast, we work directly for businesses that outsource work to our office for fulfillment purposes to stimulate reversal roles of non-performing notes. We are paid by these businesses and not the other way around. Although, this would not eliminate the additional cost that these business could experience related to similar time events as stated above.

    We have a few affiliates, and/or businesses, that have been provided an option to offset loses we have incurred due to the unforeseen mortgage market conditions. Option one was to pay an additional $250 toward cases that have exceeded the 90-day period. Most affiliates, without hesitation, agreed to pay the additional $250 as this was extremely fair considering the amount they received in contrast - $1, 500 to $5, 000. The second option was to take on the cases themselves by just making some simple phone calls or provide additional information that the lender may request until completion. The Although, you can't expect everyone to be a willing participant and help offset costs related to their client's best interest. We had already done the majority of the difficult work. Some of the affiliates, some of whom entered their opinion here, have taken a less than acceptable position to their client's best interest and were extremely reluctant to assist.

    In closing, the complaint entered here is unfounded and has no merit. They would have never expressed their concerns, or made these false statements, if we had never asked for the additional SMALL amount. They are upset and are lashing out and are simply demonstrating their bias to their money and less bias to their client's best interest. If you are an honest and fair individual who wants to help people – choose a company who always put the client’s best interest first.

    0 Votes
  • Lo
    LossMitigation May 12, 2009

    We have been having problems with USLM since the beginning. They have also returned many files saying they had the right to do so because of the "ICA" their version of a contract.

    We are also awaiting refunds for the initial 5 file fulfillment and were told "we'll continue to work toward resolution on those. " They have been nothing but dishonest from the beginning and no amount of rebuttals on websites could possible prove otherwise. When to many people are saying the same thing it has alot of merit. Stay away from Stan Schultz, Christina Schultz and Josh Schultz. You will only end up with egg on your face!

    0 Votes
  • Tx
    TXMITIGATION May 13, 2009

    its funny how all these complaints come in without people putting their names down, mainly because their not real complaints just competitors. Not to mention most of the people that file these complaints charge their clients over $3000 for something they could get for free or for $395 through USLM. i have been outsourcing files to USLM since 2005 and i have not had any issues, but then agian i also do work when im asked for my money and dont just sit there and expect someone to do everything for me so i can take all the money for free.

    0 Votes
  • Ea
    Eagle1080 May 19, 2009

    THis company is full of #$%$
    We closed our first file and waited abour 3 months to recieve or pay AND only after calling and calling CHristina and Mr. Schultz. We have closed an additional 2 files and are still waiting for our money and those files closed about 2/3 months ago. Everytime we call they put us on hold and then hang up. They are thieves, if you dont have money to pay your affliates then dont spend the money you dont have. IF anyone wants my name email me and I will gladly give it to you just so you know that I am serious about my complaint. And ya you too Christina, Mr. Shultz have the cojones and handle your business you #$%^& crooks. You are the kind of company that is giving loss mitigation companies a bad name. You #&(*#$ a&*H*&(#.

    0 Votes
  • Sa
    Santaro Jun 06, 2009

    I have reviewed most of these posts with some concerns. On matters of honesty, ethics, integrity, and allegiances to the client best interest, I found that the foundation of these posts are common on one issue - how much money can one keep and continue to earn from the homeowner's misfortune. I have worked with this firm (Mr. Schultz's office and staff) since June 2008 and have had no problems aligned to monetary issues or casework proficiency. I'm a licensed attorney and do not send my client's cases to anyone without first investigating their operation. I was referred to Mr. Schultz's office by colleague who currently utilizes Mr. Schultz's office for his law practice. I continue to outsource my client case needs whereby loss mitigation services are the necessary solution outside the need for filing a bankruptcy stay. I hire Mr. Schultz's office to implement, with my oversight, potential and favorable loss mitigation remedies for my client's. We pay him and not visa versa so there are no monies owed to my law firm. Most of the post, if not all, state they are owed, and/or unwilling to sacrifice an insignificant portion of $250, after they collected thousands from their clients, to continue a case to satisfy their client's best interest. Needless to say, I have the utmost respect for Mr. Schultz's office and the professionalism they have demonstrated over and over again for the last 12 months. Everyone here is all about money owed to him or her when Mr. Schultz is paid by you directly to complete the work. I have had 6 cases whereby we paid Mr. Schultz's office an additional $250 to satisfy some loss Mitigation continuance issues. We understand the reason for these requests as it was directly related to the ever-expanding timeline lenders, and market condition, have placed on satisfying loss mitigation requests. We understand our contractual obligations and have installed language in our agreements with Mr. Schultz that would satisfy these market concerns if they were to surface. They have surfaced and we have made compensation adjustments to satisfy these small costs. In closing, any complaint here that is centered, outside of any client's best interest and continued need for skilled assistance, should be questioned for its merit and truthfulness.

    0 Votes
  • Th
    Thomas Jackson Jul 17, 2009

    They are a ripoff as most people in this industry are. I sent them 5 cases and had the clients pay them directly. the laws in my state forbid an individual from collecting up front money. the clients sent a total of $6, 225.00 and I was to be paid $3, 232.00. I have recieved nothing but excuses. stan schultz claims his business is hurt because of the economy. I ask how can that be??? his business should be booming because of the way things are. below is a copy and pasted email from stan shultz. feel free to contact me and I will share all of mine and his correspondence. e mail: [protected]

    Apologize for not replying quicker but the reason is limited to our lack of cash-flow and the pressing economy's affects to our business model. please understand that our operation has the intention of meeting our organization's operational expenses as it has always demonstrated in the past.

    You are one of a very small group of older affiliates who are in the same boat (so-to-speak) who we plan on paying when able.

    The economy has affected us all and continues to trickle down to all and organizations and we have to be mindful and make quicker decisions to react to changes in the economy and how that affects our maintaining viability.

    The majority of our members participated in the $495, or older best method program of $350, in outsourcing their fulfillment needs. this eliminated the need of my organization having to pay them as they are already compensated. if we coud have read the future then we would have recommended everyone, as we do now, to participate in the best method model.

    We have many happy and successful operations out there and we believe the cash-flow issue is just a small challenge to our operation.

    Thank you for you patience and understanding as we strongly believe this challenge will be overcome in a short window of time although, no definitive date to resolution has been understood. thank you.



    0 Votes

Post your comment

    By clicking Submit you are agreeing to the Complaints Board’s Terms and Conditions