Our firm, XXXX XXXX, XXXX has been monitoring our client 's request for mortgage assistance to SPS to ensure SPS 's compliance with Regulation X. Despite having received a complete package from the Borrower, SPS has continued to make burdensome and duplicative requests for documents in an attempt to stall the Borrower 's request for mortgage assistance. For over a year now, the Borrower has continued to cooperate in every way possible and has continued to respond to all of SPS and opposing counsel 's document requests. Since our client has retained our services, we have submitted every document, explanation, and break down that has been requested. More specifically, we have provided the Borrower 's bank statements, your request for an explanation for deposits on the Borrower 's bank statements, and now a breakdown of each deposit by property. Each request has been in response to our production of the previous requested document. The piece meal requests are inappropriate and a violation of SPS 's responsibility to act diligently in their processing and review of the Borrower 's application. 
Furthermore, it is our contention that opposing counsel has hijacked the process from the mortgage servicer and has inappropriately hindered the review of our clients ' application. In addition, on these facts we would contend that SPS has received a complete package and opposing counsel has continued to move forward with the trial in violation of XXXX CFR XXXX. Since our client had in fact submitted a complete application to SPS at least 37 days before a foreclosure sale date was scheduled, they should not have taken any affirmative action that could cause or result in a judgment of foreclosure or a foreclosure sale. Even though opposing counsel is attempting to continue to move forward with trial, SPS is responsible for promptly instructing counsel not to proceed in such a manner once a package is received. 
