CDS Lawyers

This communication is in response to the complaint filed by [redacted] Following receipt of the complaint, we investigated the situation Based upon our investigation, we have concluded that CDS acted appropriately and there is no validity to claims made by [redacted] ** [redacted] There are only two plausible explanations, Mrs [redacted] legitimately did not understand or Mrs [redacted] is deliberately misleading the Revdex.com and knows she is wrong It is important to understand that CDS cannot do its job nor can any consumer expect to receive a modification from any lender if they fail to cooperate as instructed The services are filled with time after time when CDS contacted Mrs [redacted] but she failed to respond Similarly, when the lender needed something, CDS could not provide information it did not have and the failure of the consumer therefore would make the granting of any modification impossible The CDS contract with the consumer requires each consumer to act in good faithAs described above, [redacted] failed to cooperate did not act in good faith Given the actions of [redacted] , there is no justification for any refund CDS did a substantial amount of work Notwithstanding the foregoing, CDS is prepared to provide the consumer with a refund even though there is no basis for one The refund will be processed within the next days We now consider this matter closed

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear belowI will respond to each of the numbered items from CDS: I am not disputing that CDS Lawyers made no guarantees for a modification, but it is their processes that I am disputing [redacted] and myself DID provide full, complete and accurate information The items CDS is disputing, unfortunately, were presented via phone conversations between myself and [redacted] , at least several times within the initial paperwork submittal I informed Karl that we had indeed had modifications before and that is why I consulted with a lawyer, as I had hoped they would have better success submitting a modification request than we would on our own I was informed by CDS that they showed modifications, but I only knew of CDS is stating that we lied and provided them information This is not the case CDS Lawyers state they promised that a lawyer in our State of Colorado would be involved, but I was never informed of this, either in writing or verbally We were never aware that a lawyer from Colorado was contacted, consulted, etc We were NEVER told our information was incomplete and we provided CDS with the most accurate information we had CDS is charging us with perjury! This is liable and we do NOT agree that any information provided to CDS was inaccurate! I agree with this - we were aware that the lender ( [redacted] ) was the one to make the ultimate decision on the modification CDS states we did not operate in good faith But I can say the same for them! They promised me multiple times via phone conversation and voice messages that they would be in contact with [redacted] , our mortgage company, at least every two weeks, until the modification was agreed upon, then weeklyI was informed by [redacted] , on July 15th, that [redacted] had only talked to CDS twice in the time period between April and July! They state they worked very hard to get our modification for us, but as soon as our fees were paid to CDS ($3500) they stopped returning calls, and messages The lack of communication between the processing department and myself was so lacking that I went ahead and contacted HUD Counseling services to start a modification request with them Most importantly here - CDS is stating that we withheld information, as in sale dates This is INCORRECT! We were not aware of any sale date until we started receiving solicitations from realtors, etcthat showed a sale date! I was not able to confirm this with CDS and so finally when I went to HUD Counseling on July 15th they were able to confirm the sale date! At the time we consulted with CDS in April, we had only been notified by a [redacted] lawyer of the pending foreclosure When we signed CDS contracts in April, we had no sale date! The sale date was posted in May, AFTER CDS was hired on to our case and after we had signed their paperwork! We were told by [redacted] that we were not able to receive any information while CDS was on our case, so this information was NOT available to US but to CDS We can say that CDS withheld this information from US, rather than the other way aroundAs we had no success getting any updated information from CDS by mid July, I consulted with HUD They informed me to contact [redacted] directly, so on July 15th I contacted them and had them stop authorization to CDS Lawyers Then I was able to talk to [redacted] myself and get all updates, such as sale date, modification update, etc [redacted] informed me that a in-house modification was going to be submitted and approved As of August 3rd I was able to start a trial payment period with them, in hopes of getting the modification by December 1st, I believe the only thing that CDS did was submit paperwork and never represented me as a lawyers office should Regards, [redacted]

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.I will respond to each of the numbered items from CDS: I am not disputing that CDS Lawyers made no guarantees for a modification, but it is their processes that I am disputing [redacted] and myself DID provide full, complete and accurate information The items CDS is disputing, unfortunately, were presented via phone conversations between myself and [redacted] , at least several times within the initial paperwork submittal I informed Karl that we had indeed had modifications before and that is why I consulted with a lawyer, as I had hoped they would have better success submitting a modification request than we would on our own I was informed by CDS that they showed modifications, but I only knew of CDS is stating that we lied and provided them information This is not the case CDS Lawyers state they promised that a lawyer in our State of Colorado would be involved, but I was never informed of this, either in writing or verbally We were never aware that a lawyer from Colorado was contacted, consulted, etc We were NEVER told our information was incomplete and we provided CDS with the most accurate information we had CDS is charging us with perjury! This is liable and we do NOT agree that any information provided to CDS was inaccurate! I agree with this - we were aware that the lender ( [redacted] ) was the one to make the ultimate decision on the modification CDS states we did not operate in good faith But I can say the same for them! They promised me multiple times via phone conversation and voice messages that they would be in contact with [redacted] , our mortgage company, at least every two weeks, until the modification was agreed upon, then weeklyI was informed by [redacted] , on July 15th, that [redacted] had only talked to CDS twice in the time period between April and July! They state they worked very hard to get our modification for us, but as soon as our fees were paid to CDS ($3500) they stopped returning calls, and messages The lack of communication between the processing department and myself was so lacking that I went ahead and contacted HUD Counseling services to start a modification request with them Most importantly here - CDS is stating that we withheld information, as in sale dates This is INCORRECT! We were not aware of any sale date until we started receiving solicitations from realtors, etcthat showed a sale date! I was not able to confirm this with CDS and so finally when I went to HUD Counseling on July 15th they were able to confirm the sale date! At the time we consulted with CDS in April, we had only been notified by a [redacted] lawyer of the pending foreclosure When we signed CDS contracts in April, we had no sale date! The sale date was posted in May, AFTER CDS was hired on to our case and after we had signed their paperwork! We were told by [redacted] that we were not able to receive any information while CDS was on our case, so this information was NOT available to US but to CDS We can say that CDS withheld this information from US, rather than the other way around.As we had no success getting any updated information from CDS by mid July, I consulted with HUD They informed me to contact [redacted] directly, so on July 15th I contacted them and had them stop authorization to CDS Lawyers Then I was able to talk to [redacted] myself and get all updates, such as sale date, modification update, etc [redacted] informed me that a in-house modification was going to be submitted and approved As of August 3rd I was able to start a trial payment period with them, in hopes of getting the modification by December 1st, I believe the only thing that CDS did was submit paperwork and never represented me as a lawyers office should Regards, [redacted]

CDS Lawyers is a reputable company and did save my home from foreclosure without filing bankruptcyThey were able to stop the Sheriff Sale of my home after the judge awarded the mortgage company a judgement of foreclosure and negotiate a restructured mortgage payment for me with reasonable termsThey got my interest rate lowered which lowered my monthly payments and got the arrearages tacked on to the end of my loan, thus cutting my mortgage payments by $per monthMy mortgage company would never considered or advised me of this option when I tried to negotiate on my ownAll they would do was a forbearance for six months with a balloon payment at the end of the six months for all arrearages CDS representatives were very courteous and returned all my calls promptly and patiently answered all my questionsAll paperwork was transmitted via fax and email and they reviewed the documents in a timely matter and advised me of any changes necessaryOverall, my relationship with this company was very positive and I recommend anyone who is in risk of losing their home to foreclosure to contact themIt is never too late to seek advice if you wish to remain in your homeI tried to negotiate with my mortgage company on my own and it got me in foreclosureCDS Lawyers helped me get out of foreclosure with a payment I can affordThank you!

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved Regards, [redacted]

I previously filed a compliant against this companyThe company responded to the complaint stationg they would refund my money with daysIt is now days and I have not received said refundThis company solicits people who fall behind on their mortgagesThey make all kinds of promises and collect a fee to represent you with applying for a modificiationOnce you pay them, you never hear from them againThey state you will have online access and can check- the site has never been set up (since I started in Jan.) If you call you never get a serviceI left messages 3x a week for months- no responseThey state they will contact your lender weeklyI spoke with my lender and they NEVER heard from this firm, They collected $3600+ from me and wanted $moreI stopped paying them when I was not getting answersI even emailed them weekly for an updatesI started this process Jan5, come May still no update or outcomeThis company is a scam prying on people delinquent on their mortgagesThey will not help you save your homeNor will they contact your lenderI would like my $refund as promisedThey did not perform and service for said moneyI am in foreclosure because of them.Refund as promised by company in my prior complaint to Revdex.com

"CDS Lawyers" [redacted] ***

This letter is in response to your recent inquiry regarding the complaint filed by *** *** *** ***. As indicated below, we have concluded that there is no substance to the complaint and is without meritThe complaint omits some of the most important facts and therefore misleads
anyone who reads itCDS Lawyers is a law firm registered with the State Bar of California. It has affiliated lawyers admitted to practice in every state where it does business including the state where Mrand Mrs*** reside. The methodology that CDS Lawyers follows complies with the requirements promulgated under Mortgage Assistance Relief Services Act promulgated by the US Federal Trade Commission The facts are not in dispute. Mrand Mrs*** entered into an agreement with CDS Lawyers under which CDS Lawyers would try to help Mrand Mrs*** obtain a modification on the mortgage on their home. Both in the initial conversation before they signed the contract, in the contract and in the compliance call that took place, there were a number of issues that were made clear and which Mrand Mrs*** acknowledged. These are as follows: CDS Lawyers made on guarantees that it would be able to obtain a modification. The only thing CDS promised to do was to use commercially reasonable efforts to try to obtain a modification. The record demonstrates CDS did exactly this Mrand Mrs*** promised to provide full, complete and accurate information. Moreover, if any of the information was incomplete or wrong, they had an obligation to immediately correct any inaccurate information and provide all information. Moreover, Mrand Mrs*** were told that a lawyer and the CDS Lawyers staff was going to rely on the information as being complete and accurate. The record demonstrates that Mrand Mrs*** submitted information that they knew was and knew that the failure to advise CDS Lawyers could detrimentally impact the probability of obtaining a loan modification CDS lawyers promised that a lawyer admitted in the state where they lived would be involved and would review everything before anything was submitted to the lender. This did happen. However since Mrand Mrs*** submitted incomplete and misleading information, there was no way a lender knowing the real facts would grant a modification Mrand Mrs*** even signed the agreement with CDS Lawyers under penalty of perjury stating that all of the information contained in their application was complete and accurate. It was not so that they committed perjury The lender and not CDS Lawyers was the party who would make the ultimate determination Mrand Mrs*** agreed to operate in good faith. The failure to fully disclose the existence of sales dates and other relevant factors and committing perjury is not acting in good faith and therefore Mrand Mrs*** intentionally violated the terms of their agreement with CDS and now seek to recover the fees they paid after CDS Lawyers worked very hard to help obtain a modification but could not because Mrand Mrs*** had not acted in good faith and had lied A review of the facts shows that Mrand Mrs*** failed to disclose they had been engaged in loan modification more than once prior to contacting CDS Lawyers and had defaulted on the modification obtained by others. Had CDS Lawyers been aware of the this, they would have never accepted Mrand Mrs*** as clients. In addition, Mrand Mrs*** failed to disclose the existence of a foreclosure sales date. Had CDS Lawyers known about the sales date, they likely would not have accepted Mrand Mrs*** as clients into the program. To reward Mrand Mrs*** for engaging in deliberate misrepresentation we believe is inappropriate CDS lawyers is concerned that the Revdex.com will not fairly review this matter and automatically take the side of Mrand Mrs*** despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. We hope we are wrong

This communication is in response to the complaint filed by [redacted].  Following receipt of the complaint, we investigated the situation.  Based upon our investigation, we have concluded that CDS acted appropriately and there is no validity to claims made by [redacted]...

[redacted].  There are only two plausible explanations, Mrs. [redacted] legitimately did not understand or Mrs. [redacted] is deliberately misleading the Revdex.com and knows she is wrong.  It is important to understand that CDS cannot do its job nor can any consumer expect to receive a modification from any lender if they fail to cooperate as instructed.  The services are filled with time after time when CDS contacted Mrs. [redacted] but she failed to respond.  Similarly, when the lender needed something, CDS could not provide information it did not have and the failure of the consumer therefore would make the granting of any modification impossible.  The CDS contract with the consumer requires each consumer to act in good faith. As described above, [redacted] failed to cooperate did not act in good faith.   Given the actions of [redacted], there is no justification for any refund.  CDS did a substantial amount of work.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, CDS is prepared to provide the consumer with a refund even though there is no basis for one.  The refund will be processed within the next 30 days.  We now consider this matter closed.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me.  I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.
Regards,
[redacted]

"CDS Lawyers"
[redacted]
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
I will respond to each of the numbered items from CDS:
 
1.  I am not disputing that CDS Lawyers made no guarantees for a modification, but it is their processes that I am disputing.
2.  [redacted] and myself DID provide full, complete and accurate information.  The items CDS is disputing, unfortunately, were presented via phone conversations between myself and [redacted], at least several times within the initial paperwork submittal.  I informed Karl that we had indeed had modifications before and that is why I consulted with a lawyer, as I had hoped they would have better success submitting a modification request than we would on our own.  I was informed by CDS that they showed 5 modifications, but I only knew of 2.  CDS is stating that we lied and provided them false information.  This is not the case.
3.  CDS Lawyers state they promised that a lawyer in our State of Colorado would be involved, but I was never informed of this, either in writing or verbally.  We were never aware that a lawyer from Colorado was contacted, consulted, etc.  We were NEVER told our information was incomplete and we provided CDS with the most accurate information we had.
4.  CDS is charging us with perjury!  This is liable and we do NOT agree that any information provided to CDS was inaccurate! 
5.  I agree with this - we were aware that the lender ([redacted]) was the one to make the ultimate decision on the modification.
6.  CDS states we did not operate in good faith.  But I can say the same for them!  They promised me multiple times via phone conversation and voice messages that they would be in contact with [redacted], our mortgage company, at least every two weeks, until the modification was agreed upon, then weekly. I was informed by [redacted], on July 15th, that [redacted] had only talked to CDS twice in the time period between April and July!  They state they worked very hard to get our modification for us, but as soon as our fees were paid to CDS ($3500) they stopped returning calls, and messages.  The lack of communication between the processing department and myself was so lacking that I went ahead and contacted HUD Counseling services to start a modification request with them.  Most importantly here - CDS is stating that we withheld information, as in sale dates.  This is INCORRECT!  We were not aware of any sale date until we started receiving solicitations from realtors, etc. that showed a sale date!  I was not able to confirm this with CDS and so finally when I went to HUD Counseling on July 15th they were able to confirm the sale date!   At the time we consulted with CDS in April, we had only been notified by a [redacted] lawyer of the pending foreclosure.  When we signed CDS contracts in April, we had no sale date!  The sale date was posted in May, AFTER CDS was hired on to our case and after we had signed their paperwork!  We were told by [redacted] that we were not able to receive any information while CDS was on our case, so this information was NOT available to US but to CDS.  We can say that CDS withheld this information from US, rather than the other way around.
As we had no success getting any updated information from CDS by mid July, I consulted with HUD.  They informed me to contact [redacted] directly, so on July 15th I contacted them and had them stop authorization to CDS Lawyers.  Then I was able to talk to [redacted] myself and get all updates, such as sale date, modification update, etc.  [redacted] informed me that a in-house modification was going to be submitted and approved.  As of August 3rd I was able to start a trial payment period with them, in hopes of getting the modification by December 1st, 2016.  I believe the only thing that CDS did was submit paperwork and never represented me as a lawyers office should. 
 
 
 
 
Regards,
[redacted]

This letter is in response to your recent inquiry regarding the complaint filed by [redacted].  As indicated below, we have concluded that there is no substance to the complaint and is without merit. The complaint omits some of the most important facts and therefore misleads anyone...

who reads it. CDS Lawyers is a law firm registered with the State Bar of California.  It has affiliated lawyers admitted to practice in every state where it does business including the state where Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] reside.  The methodology that CDS Lawyers follows complies with the requirements promulgated under Mortgage Assistance Relief Services Act promulgated by the US Federal Trade Commission.   The facts are not in dispute.  Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] entered into an agreement with CDS Lawyers under which CDS Lawyers would try to help Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] obtain a modification on the mortgage on their home.  Both in the initial conversation before they signed the contract, in the contract and in the compliance call that took place, there were a number of issues that were made clear and which Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] acknowledged.  These are as follows:   1. CDS Lawyers made on guarantees that it would be able to obtain a modification.  The only thing CDS promised to do was to use commercially reasonable efforts to try to obtain a modification.  The record demonstrates CDS did exactly this.   2. Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] promised to provide full, complete and accurate information.  Moreover, if any of the information was incomplete or wrong, they had an obligation to immediately correct any inaccurate information and provide all information.  Moreover, Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] were told that a lawyer and the CDS Lawyers staff was going to rely on the information as being complete and accurate.  The record demonstrates that Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] submitted information that they knew was false and knew that the failure to advise CDS Lawyers could detrimentally impact the probability of obtaining a loan modification.   3. CDS lawyers promised that a lawyer admitted in the state where they lived would be involved and would review everything before anything was submitted to the lender.  This did happen.  However since Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] submitted incomplete and misleading information, there was no way a lender knowing the real facts would grant a modification.   4. Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] even signed the agreement with CDS Lawyers under penalty of perjury stating that all of the information contained in their application was complete and accurate.  It was not so that they committed perjury.   4. The lender and not CDS Lawyers was the party who would make the ultimate determination.   5. Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] agreed to operate in good faith.  The failure to fully disclose the existence of sales dates and other relevant factors and committing perjury is not acting in good faith and therefore Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] intentionally violated the terms of their agreement with CDS and now seek to recover the fees they paid after CDS Lawyers worked very hard to help obtain a modification but could not because Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] had not acted in good faith and had lied.   A review of the facts shows that Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] failed to disclose they had been engaged in loan modification more than once prior to contacting CDS Lawyers and had defaulted on  the modification obtained by others.  Had CDS Lawyers been aware of the this, they would have never accepted Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] as clients.  In addition, Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] failed to disclose the existence of a foreclosure sales date.  Had CDS Lawyers known about the sales date, they likely would not have accepted Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] as clients into the  program.  To reward Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] for engaging in deliberate misrepresentation we believe is inappropriate.   CDS lawyers is concerned that the Revdex.com will not fairly review this matter and automatically take the side of Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  We hope we are wrong.

I previously filed a compliant against this company. The company responded to the complaint stationg they would refund my money with 30 days. It is now 30 days and I have not received said refund. This company solicits people who fall behind on their mortgages. They make all kinds of promises and collect a fee to represent you with applying for a modificiation. Once you pay them, you never hear from them again. They state you will have online access and can check- the site has never been set up (since I started in Jan.) If you call you never get a 800 service. I left messages 3x a week for months- no response. They state they will contact your lender weekly. I spoke with my lender and they NEVER heard from this firm, They collected $3600+ from me and wanted $1600 more. I stopped paying them when I was not getting answers. I even emailed them weekly for an updates. I started this process Jan5, come May still no update or outcome. This company is a scam prying on people delinquent on their mortgages. They will not help you save your home. Nor will they contact your lender. I would like my $3600 refund as promised. They did not perform and service for said money. I am in foreclosure because of them.Refund as promised by company in my prior complaint to Revdex.com.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.I will respond to each of the numbered items from CDS: 1.  I am not disputing that CDS Lawyers made no guarantees for a modification, but it is their processes that I am disputing.2.  [redacted] and myself DID provide full, complete and accurate information.  The items CDS is disputing, unfortunately, were presented via phone conversations between myself and [redacted], at least several times within the initial paperwork submittal.  I informed Karl that we had indeed had modifications before and that is why I consulted with a lawyer, as I had hoped they would have better success submitting a modification request than we would on our own.  I was informed by CDS that they showed 5 modifications, but I only knew of 2.  CDS is stating that we lied and provided them false information.  This is not the case.3.  CDS Lawyers state they promised that a lawyer in our State of Colorado would be involved, but I was never informed of this, either in writing or verbally.  We were never aware that a lawyer from Colorado was contacted, consulted, etc.  We were NEVER told our information was incomplete and we provided CDS with the most accurate information we had.4.  CDS is charging us with perjury!  This is liable and we do NOT agree that any information provided to CDS was inaccurate!  5.  I agree with this - we were aware that the lender ([redacted]) was the one to make the ultimate decision on the modification.6.  CDS states we did not operate in good faith.  But I can say the same for them!  They promised me multiple times via phone conversation and voice messages that they would be in contact with [redacted], our mortgage company, at least every two weeks, until the modification was agreed upon, then weekly. I was informed by [redacted], on July 15th, that [redacted] had only talked to CDS twice in the time period between April and July!  They state they worked very hard to get our modification for us, but as soon as our fees were paid to CDS ($3500) they stopped returning calls, and messages.  The lack of communication between the processing department and myself was so lacking that I went ahead and contacted HUD Counseling services to start a modification request with them.  Most importantly here - CDS is stating that we withheld information, as in sale dates.  This is INCORRECT!  We were not aware of any sale date until we started receiving solicitations from realtors, etc. that showed a sale date!  I was not able to confirm this with CDS and so finally when I went to HUD Counseling on July 15th they were able to confirm the sale date!   At the time we consulted with CDS in April, we had only been notified by a [redacted] lawyer of the pending foreclosure.  When we signed CDS contracts in April, we had no sale date!  The sale date was posted in May, AFTER CDS was hired on to our case and after we had signed their paperwork!  We were told by [redacted] that we were not able to receive any information while CDS was on our case, so this information was NOT available to US but to CDS.  We can say that CDS withheld this information from US, rather than the other way around.As we had no success getting any updated information from CDS by mid July, I consulted with HUD.  They informed me to contact [redacted] directly, so on July 15th I contacted them and had them stop authorization to CDS Lawyers.  Then I was able to talk to [redacted] myself and get all updates, such as sale date, modification update, etc.  [redacted] informed me that a in-house modification was going to be submitted and approved.  As of August 3rd I was able to start a trial payment period with them, in hopes of getting the modification by December 1st, 2016.  I believe the only thing that CDS did was submit paperwork and never represented me as a lawyers office should.      
Regards,
[redacted]

“This communication is in response to the complaint filed by [redacted].  The facts are not in...

dispute.  Mr. [redacted] contracted with Consumer Debt Solutions (CDS) for loan modification services.  CDS used its best efforts to try to achieve a modification for Mr. [redacted], but was unsuccessful. Despite our diligent efforts, the financial institution did not grant the modification.  To the extent Mr. [redacted] has a complaint; the complaint should be directed at financial institution who refused to grant the modification, the government regulators who have allowed the financial institution to refuse to to provide the modification and to the politicians who have also allowed all of this to transpire. 
CDS did a substantial amount of work on behalf of Mr. [redacted].  Hours and hours of time was devoted to trying to help achieve a modification.  Unfortunately, because of the actions of the bank we initially did not succeed.
 
When Mr. [redacted] entered into his contract with CDS he was told verbally that we could not guarantee success.  All that we could promise was to use our best efforts to help him obtain a modification. Section 21 of the contract he signed with CDS is labeled “No Guarantee and Risks.”  It states in pertinent part  “CDS agrees to act on CLIENT’s behalf faithfully and to the best of its ability but in no way can CDS guarantee the specific success or that CLIENT will not lose their home. CDS makes no guarantees . . .”  CDS lived up to all of its contractual obligations set forth in the contract.
 
After the initial modification was denied, CDS offered at no additional cost to Mr. [redacted] to try to obtain a modification a second time.  Likewise, CDS was prepared to try multiple times if it did not succeed the second time around.  It is not uncommon for banks to routinely deny a modification the first time around and later grant a modification. Our offer to resubmit was made in writing. Mr. [redacted] never responded.  Mr. [redacted] also stopped taking our telephone calls and also did not respond to our emails.  Since Mr. [redacted] did not respond despite multiple efforts to try to contact him over an extended period of time, we stopped working on his file. There is no way we can do anything to help if a homeowner refuses to communicate with us. 
 
Section 7 of the contract labelled “CLIENT Obligations” specifically states “CLIENT agrees to fully cooperate to the fullest extent necessary for CDS to discharge its duties under this Agreement.”  Moreover, the same section of Agreement also states “ . . .[I]f there is any violation of any CLIENT obligation CDS shall have the right to immediately cease all services and/or terminate this Agreement without any refund.”  In accordance with the provisions of Section 7, this is precisely what CDS has done in this instance.  Mr. [redacted] therefore has no right to any refund. 
 
We spent considerable time working for Mr. [redacted].  Like every other law firm, we expect to get paid for our time. The price that CDS charges for loan modification is among the lowest in the industry including organizations where lawyers are not involved. We have a great track record, but cannot obtain a modification for everyone.   If anyone promises they can obtain a modification every time, they are in our opinion are not legitimate. The only way we are able to offer a low price is for the consumer to take the risk that it is possible we may not succeed despite our good faith efforts. In addition, because unlike other loan modification programs, lawyers are involved, absent any other factor the costs should be higher.  However, CDS has kept them very low.  Mr. [redacted] knew when he signed up that he was taking the risk we might be able to obtain a modification for him. He knew lawyers were involved and he knew the price charged reflected the risk he had agreed to take.  For him now to complain is simply not appropriate.  Moreover, since he refused to cooperate with our subsequent efforts for which we could have been successful, he has no one to blame but himself.
 
Section 14 of the Agreement contains the dispute resolution provisions.  Under these provisions, if there is any dispute, it is to be resolved through final and binding arbitration through an independent and well respected arbitration organization, the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service.  If Mr. [redacted] believes our analysis is wrong, we would seriously suggest he pursue arbitration as set forth in the contract.
 
Notwithstanding the explanation above, in the spirit of good client relationship we are prepared to offer Mr. [redacted] a refund.  If he wants the refund, he is going to need contact us by phone and fully cooperate in the refund process.  The onus is on Mr. [redacted] to pick up the phone and call or email us.  We have repeatedly tried to contact him to discuss a possible refund before, but he is the person who refused to talk with us.  Unless Mr. [redacted] contacts us to discuss a refund or files for arbitration, we consider this matter closed.]”

“This communication is in response to the complaint filed by [redacted].  The facts are not in dispute.  Mr. [redacted] contracted with Consumer Debt Solutions (CDS) for loan modification services.  CDS used its best...

efforts to try to achieve a modification for Mr. [redacted], but was unsuccessful. Despite our diligent efforts, the financial institution did not grant the modification.  To the extent Mr. [redacted] has a complaint; the complaint should be directed at financial institution who refused to grant the modification, the government regulators who have allowed the financial institution to refuse to to provide the modification and to the politicians who have also allowed all of this to transpire. CDS did a substantial amount of work on behalf of Mr. [redacted].  Hours and hours of time was devoted to trying to help achieve a modification.  Unfortunately, because of the actions of the bank we initially did not succeed. When Mr. [redacted] entered into his contract with CDS he was told verbally that we could not guarantee success.  All that we could promise was to use our best efforts to help him obtain a modification. Section 21 of the contract he signed with CDS is labeled “No Guarantee and Risks.”  It states in pertinent part  “CDS agrees to act on CLIENT’s behalf faithfully and to the best of its ability but in no way can CDS guarantee the specific success or that CLIENT will not lose their home. CDS makes no guarantees . . .”  CDS lived up to all of its contractual obligations set forth in the contract. After the initial modification was denied, CDS offered at no additional cost to Mr. [redacted] to try to obtain a modification a second time.  Likewise, CDS was prepared to try multiple times if it did not succeed the second time around.  It is not uncommon for banks to routinely deny a modification the first time around and later grant a modification. Our offer to resubmit was made in writing. Mr. [redacted] never responded.  Mr. [redacted] also stopped taking our telephone calls and also did not respond to our emails.  Since Mr. [redacted] did not respond despite multiple efforts to try to contact him over an extended period of time, we stopped working on his file. There is no way we can do anything to help if a homeowner refuses to communicate with us.  Section 7 of the contract labelled “CLIENT Obligations” specifically states “CLIENT agrees to fully cooperate to the fullest extent necessary for CDS to discharge its duties under this Agreement.”  Moreover, the same section of Agreement also states “ . . .[I]f there is any violation of any CLIENT obligation CDS shall have the right to immediately cease all services and/or terminate this Agreement without any refund.”  In accordance with the provisions of Section 7, this is precisely what CDS has done in this instance.  Mr. [redacted] therefore has no right to any refund.  We spent considerable time working for Mr. [redacted].  Like every other law firm, we expect to get paid for our time. The price that CDS charges for loan modification is among the lowest in the industry including organizations where lawyers are not involved. We have a great track record, but cannot obtain a modification for everyone.   If anyone promises they can obtain a modification every time, they are in our opinion are not legitimate. The only way we are able to offer a low price is for the consumer to take the risk that it is possible we may not succeed despite our good faith efforts. In addition, because unlike other loan modification programs, lawyers are involved, absent any other factor the costs should be higher.  However, CDS has kept them very low.  Mr. [redacted] knew when he signed up that he was taking the risk we might be able to obtain a modification for him. He knew lawyers were involved and he knew the price charged reflected the risk he had agreed to take.  For him now to complain is simply not appropriate.  Moreover, since he refused to cooperate with our subsequent efforts for which we could have been successful, he has no one to blame but himself. Section 14 of the Agreement contains the dispute resolution provisions.  Under these provisions, if there is any dispute, it is to be resolved through final and binding arbitration through an independent and well respected arbitration organization, the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service.  If Mr. [redacted] believes our analysis is wrong, we would seriously suggest he pursue arbitration as set forth in the contract. Notwithstanding the explanation above, in the spirit of good client relationship we are prepared to offer Mr. [redacted] a refund.  If he wants the refund, he is going to need contact us by phone and fully cooperate in the refund process.  The onus is on Mr. [redacted] to pick up the phone and call or email us.  We have repeatedly tried to contact him to discuss a possible refund before, but he is the person who refused to talk with us.  Unless Mr. [redacted] contacts us to discuss a refund or files for arbitration, we consider this matter closed.]”

I previously filed a compliant against this company. The company responded to the complaint stationg they would refund my money with 30 days. It is now 30 days and I have not received said refund. This company solicits people who fall behind on their mortgages. They make all kinds of promises and collect a fee to represent you with applying for a modificiation. Once you pay them, you never hear from them again. They state you will have online access and can check- the site has never been set up (since I started in Jan.) If you call you never get a 800 service. I left messages 3x a week for months- no response. They state they will contact your lender weekly. I spoke with my lender and they NEVER heard from this firm, They collected $3600+ from me and wanted $1600 more. I stopped paying them when I was not getting answers. I even emailed them weekly for an updates. I started this process Jan5, come May still no update or outcome. This company is a scam prying on people delinquent on their mortgages. They will not help you save your home. Nor will they contact your lender. I would like my $3600 refund as promised. They did not perform and service for said money. I am in foreclosure because of them.
Refund as promised by company in my prior complaint to Revdex.com.

"CDS Lawyers"[redacted] [redacted]

CDS Lawyers is a reputable company and did save my home from foreclosure without filing bankruptcy. They were able to stop the Sheriff Sale of my home after the judge awarded the mortgage company a judgement of foreclosure and negotiate a restructured mortgage payment for me with reasonable terms. They got my interest rate lowered which lowered my monthly payments and got the arrearages tacked on to the end of my loan, thus cutting my mortgage payments by $500.00 per month. My mortgage company would never considered or advised me of this option when I tried to negotiate on my own. All they would do was a forbearance for six months with a balloon payment at the end of the six months for all arrearages.

CDS representatives were very courteous and returned all my calls promptly and patiently answered all my questions. All paperwork was transmitted via fax and email and they reviewed the documents in a timely matter and advised me of any changes necessary. Overall, my relationship with this company was very positive and I recommend anyone who is in risk of losing their home to foreclosure to contact them. It is never too late to seek advice if you wish to remain in your home. I tried to negotiate with my mortgage company on my own and it got me in foreclosure. CDS Lawyers helped me get out of foreclosure with a payment I can afford. Thank you!