|
Loss
Mitigation ERRORS:
1. The reason given,
in the Jan 27th letter and by telephone, for denial of
MODIFICATION IN GOOD STANDING was because
"account
has recently been modified".
This was a
HAMP modification 11 years ago. 11 years ago is not "recent", is an error,
and therefore is not a valid reason for denial.
2. The reason given,
in the Jan 27th 2021 letter and by telephone, for denial of TRIAL
MODIFICATION and DEFERRAL was because the Borrower had been offered a
REPAYMENT PLAN, ( in the same Jan 27th letter).
The Jan 27th
letter is in error and contradicts itself --- 4th paragraph
states:
“Because we
were unable to approve any other home retention options, a Repayment Plan is
being offered”
which
contradicts the actual reason given for denial of the TRIAL
MODIFICATION and DEFERRAL:
"because
you were approved for another loss mitigation option based on investor
and/or regulatory rules."
That "other
loss mitigation option" is the REPAYMENT PLAN (confirmed by telephone in
several conversations).
If the
actual reason were true then the 4th paragraph reason should
say the inverse:
“Because a
Repayment Plan is being offered we are not offering two other home retention
options”!
This
contradiction is an error. And if the 4th paragraph reason were
true then the denial is also in error and in violation of
CA Homeowner's Bill of Rights where
no reason has been given for being "unable to approve any other home
retention options".
3.
It is an error to ignore the Borrower’s APPEAL. There is no reference to the
Appeal in the March 18th 2021 APPEAL REJECTION letter. The only word in the
letter that can be attributed to “appeal” is "inquiry".
The
Borrower's Appeal, requesting reconsideration of a MODIFICATION, (instead of
REPAYMENT PLAN), was denied with no reference made to what was in the
Appeal. In fact the appeal itself was never mentioned.
And the
Servicer and Lender are specifically offering – as reason for denying the “inquiry”(Appeal)
-- the offer of a REPAYMENT PLAN ! This is an error. This is the same reason
for denying the TRIAL MODIFICATION and DEFERRAL. It is erroneous and makes
no sense.
4. LOSS
MITIGATION
-
1. In the case of
a LOAN MODIFICATION, Loss Mitigation is reduction of interest rate giving
lower monthly payments.
-
2. For a DEFERRAL
it is " forgiveness " of missing payments to defer them to the end of a
re-amortized, extended loan.
In both
cases the Borrower's lost income is mitigated ( made less severe, serious,
or painful ).
But in this
case, (where the REPAYMENT PLAN requires 1.5 times the monthly payment over
24 months and at the end continue with the same monthly payment at the same
high, 4.625%, interest rate) -- NOTHING is mitigated. There is no lessening
of the severity or seriousness of the Borrower's lost income. In fact the
more accurate description would be "disregard of the Borrower's need, solely
in favor of the Lender's desire".
It is
erroneous and there is no legal or logical justification for calling this
REPAYMENT PLAN "Loss Mitigation".
The lender has repeatedly said they want to "help the borrower keep his
home". This does nothing to help the borrower keep his home.
5. Even if
there were a justification for calling the REPAYMENT PLAN "Loss Mitigation",
offering it as an option is not a valid reason for not offering other
options. ( TRIAL MODIFICATION and DEFERRAL)
The error is
that the lender, merely by offering a REPAYMENT PLAN option, thinks they
have no requirement to offer 2 other options. ( TRIAL MODIFICATION or
DEFERRAL). |
