Follow Marin Events

• Home • Up • Restraining Order against Foreclosure • TRO and PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION • TRO ARGUMENT • DECLARATION OF BORROWER • Court awards attorneys’ fees for TRO • ORDER_ DENYING_TRO • REQUEST for INFORMATION • NOTICE of ERROR • Potocki v Wells Fargo •  GALLARDO v MTDS •
•  •

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

Must be sent CERTIFIED Mail to specific address as enforced by Federal Law . Find the address to send RFI or Notice of Error in your Statement

CFPB Consumer Laws and Regulations RESPA

Page 27:

Error Resolution Procedures – 12 CFR 1024.35

Notice of Error – 12 CFR 1024.35(a)
An error notice must be in writing and identify the borrower’s name, information that allows the servicer to identify the borrower’s account, and the alleged error.

A qualified written request that asserts an error relating to the servicing of a mortgage loan is an error notice, and the servicer must comply with all of the error notice requirements with respect to such qualified written request.

The commentary clarifies that a servicer should not rely solely on the borrower’s description of a submission to determine whether it is an error notice, an information request, or both.

For example, a borrower may submit a letter titled “Notice of Error” that indicates that the borrower wants to receive the information set forth in an annual escrow account statement and asserts an error for the servicer’s failure to provide that statement.

Such a letter could be both an error notice and an information request, and the servicer must evaluate whether the letter fulfills the substantive requirements of an error notice, information request, or both.

Scope of Error Resolution – 12 CFR 1024.35(b)
Failure to provide accurate information to a borrower regarding loss mitigation options and foreclosure, as required by 12 CFR 1024.39.

=============

Page31 Requests for Information – 12 CFR 1024.36

• Please provide a copy of the "INVESTOR and REGULATORY RULES and GUIDELINES":
  • used to disqualify TRIAL MODIFICATION and DEFERRAL
    • include anything that supports why:
      • this REPAYMENT PLAN is a LOSS MITIGATION option for the Borrower
      • only one LOSS MITIGATION OPTION  need be offered ( if a REPAYMENT PLAN is still being presented as a LOSS MITIGATION option),
      • "we were unable to approve any other home retention options"  in the Jan 27^th 2021 letter
  •  and any other documented reason that justified denial of MODIFICATION IN GOOD STANDING because "account has recently been modified and you are not eligible for an additional program at this time"
    • that define "recent" as used in this denial.
    • that define and describe the ineligibility.

  BACKGROUND

  These questions are being asked because in the January 27^th 2021 letter:-

•  MODIFICATION IN GOOD STANDING was denied because "account has recently been modified"

•   and TRIAL MODIFICATION and DEFERRAL were denied "because you were approved for another loss mitigation option based on investor and/or regulatory rules."  which contradicts the 4^th paragraph which states:  “Because we were unable to approve any other home retention options, a Repayment Plan is being offered”

================ ================== ==================== =============

================ ================== ==================== =============

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION & CLARIFICATION

REQUESTS

1.    Is a previous HAMP modification 11 years ago grounds for denial of MODIFICATION in good standing ? Is 11 years “recent” ?

2.    What is the REAL reason for denying TRIAL MODIFICATION and DEFERRAL ?

3.    Was the APPEAL really denied because of an offer of REPAYMENT PLAN ?

4.    Why was the APPEAL ignored ( in all appearances) and referred to as “inquiry”?

5.     Why was I asked to make 3 trial payments of $1,365.38 after I had said that I could not, and had no intention, of paying the subsequent Balloon payment?

BACKGROUND

Following the denial of a first lien loan modification application, based on investor disallowance, the specific reasons for the investor disallowance must be given.

It must be assumed, therefore, that valid reasons must be given too.

Instead the letter of denial (January 27^th 2021) contained:-

•                    MODIFICATION denied because "account has recently been modified"

•                    and Denied TRIAL MODIFICATION and DEFERRAL  "because you were approved for another loss mitigation option based on investor and/or regulatory rules."

 The reason given, in the Jan 27^th letter and by telephone, for denial of MODIFICATION was because eleven  years ago I got a HAMP modification. A HAMP modification 11 years ago is "recent" and is a valid reason for denial?

The reason given, in the Jan 27^th letter and by telephone, for denial of TRIAL MODIFICATION and DEFERRAL was because I had been offered a REPAYMENT PLAN ( in the same Jan 27^th letter). Is this a valid reason?

Offering one option (REPAYMENT PLAN)  is a valid reason for not offering other options? ( TRIAL MODIFICATION and DEFERRAL)

The conclusion is that the lender merely by offering a REPAYMENT PLAN option obviates their requirement to offer 2 other options? ( TRIAL MODIFICATION or DEFERRAL).

In addition the Jan 27^th letter ( 4^th para) states: “Because we were unable to approve any other home retention options, a Repayment Plan is being offered” which contradicts the reason given below for the TRIAL MODIFICATION and DEFERRAL If the latter  were true then this should read “Because a Repayment Plan is being offered we were unable to approve any other home retention options”, right ?  

APPEAL DENIAL

I appealed these denials on February 8th 2021.

This conclusion , above, is reinforced when the Mar 18 2021, APPEAL REJECTION letter states:

"<Servicer>was unable to grant approval for a modification for the reasons outlined in the enclosed Assistance Review Decision Notice".

The "enclosed" pages that follow ( attributed to “Assistance Review Decision Notice" ) are simply a copy of the Jan 27th letter which offered the REPAYMENT PLAN .

Here is how the alleged APPEAL REJECTION letter, Jan 27^th, starts:-

"<Servicer> .... received your inquiry on February 9th 2021.

 In your inquiry you raised questions regarding:

·         Loss Mitigation

 We have completed a full review of your inquiry and the account. Our response is below.

 Loss Mitigation

In your inquiry you requested loss mitigation assistance.

An Assistance Review Application was initiated on January 5, 2021.

We received a complete application and reviewed your account.

<Servicer>reviewed you for all available loss mitigation options. Unfortunately, <Servicer>was unable to grant approval for a modification for the reasons outlined in the enclosed  Assistance Review Decision Notice.”

The lender, using a Jan 27th letter (offering a REPAYMENT PLAN), prior to the Feb 8^th Appeal, as "Decision Notice" and reason for being  'unable to grant approval' of the Appeal -- is valid? The lender can use the offer of a REPAYMENT PLAN to ignore modification and deferral which was all that was asked for in the Appeal?

Why is there is no reference to the Appeal in the March 18th APPEAL REJECTION letter? The only word in the letter that can be attributed to “appeal” is "inquiry"?

My 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 Lender is specifically offering – as reason for denying the Appeal -- the offer of a REPAYMENT PLAN ! This is the same reason for denying the TRIAL MODIFICATION and DEFERRAL. Is that valid and does it make sense?

APPEAL

My appeal essentially constitutes a detailed explanation of how a LOAN MODIFICATION might not only make the borrower whole but the lender too ( by my recommendation that all interest, lost by the lender, to date, could be added to my  principal with my blessing). 

The appeal proposes that as current interest rates are around 3% perhaps borrower's 4.625% is too high.

I'm 72 years old - for fear of possible death from contracting the virus -  I had to close my small business (of which I was Sole Proprietor).

The COVID loss of my business income of $7,846/yr jeopardized my ability to pay $2,650 monthly going forward. (this business income gave me the ability to pay the mortgage, just, over the last 10 years - along with SocSec + rent income)

All I was asking for, in the APPEAL, was a monthly reduction of $293 going forward. So that after a few years, I will able to increase the rent of my 88 year-old tenant (who occupies half of my divided home) which would compensate enough for the loss of business income.

It would otherwise be very difficult to pay the REPAYMENT PLAN’s $3,831.09 per month over 2 years and continue on with the current mortgage+escrow of $2,651. It’s simply unaffordable.

 What is the point of Government Legislation advocating an APPEAL PROCESS when the lender -- not only need not address any part of the Appeal but can in fact appear to  ignore that it even exists?

The offer of a REPAYMENT PLAN of $1,200 more than the current monthly payment, over 2 years , is a philosophy that if the borrower cannot pay $x then offer him payments of $x+$y as a solution. ! Is that "helping me stay in my home"?

I started paying monthly principal and interest, after the March 18^th letter.