Ditech Financial, LLC

RE: Case#[redacted], [redacted] Dear [redacted]: Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the complaint filed by [redacted] regarding her account with Ditech Financial LLC (Ditech). Pursuant to Ms. [redacted]'s correspondence, a review of the account confirms that on November 25, 2016, a payment of $2,503.62 was scheduled to occur on December 16, 2016, by Ditech Customer Service. This scheduled payment for Ms. [redacted]'s account was cancelled pursuant to her request by our pay by phone system on December 2, 2016. The payment referenced in her correspondence, scheduled to occur on December 16, 2016, was not processed by Ditech and as stated above, was cancelled per Ms. [redacted]'s request on December 2, 2016. Our records also indicate that a payment of $1,214.22 was remitted to Ditech from Ms. [redacted]'s banking facility's electronic bill payment services on December 2, 2016. Ms. [redacted] should note that scheduled payments are not shown on our website. As the payment referenced in Ms. [redacted]'s correspondence was cancelled and not withdrawn from her bank, Ditech holds no responsibility towards any non-sufficient funds fees or negative balance status within her bank account. Further, Ms. [redacted] should be advised that should the December 2, 2016, payment of $1,214.22, be returned to Ditech from her bank, as a result of non-sufficient funds, Ditech retains the right, per the contractual agreement, to assess NSF and late fees to her account. A copy of Ms. [redacted]'s recent payment history is enclosed for her review. If Ms. [redacted] has any further questions, she may contact her account representatives Sandy M. at ###-###-####, extension [redacted], or Mario C. at extension [redacted]. Our Customer Service Department is also available to answer any questions or concerns and can be reached at ###-###-####, Monday - Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. CT, and Saturday 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. CT. Sincerely, Shea [redacted] Customer Service Correspondence Supervisor cc: [redacted], [redacted], FORDS, NJ 08863 [redacted]

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the complaint filed by [redacted] regarding her account with Ditech Financial LLC (Ditech).An Automated Universal Data form (AUD) was sent on May 25, 2016, to the four major credit reporting agencies (Equifax, Experian, Innovis and TransUnion),...

to delete the account from Ms. [redacted]' credit history as the foreclosure sale was completed November 5, 2013, before the account was transferred to Ditech. Once the information is received, it may take 5 to 7 business days for the credit reportingagencies to update their records.If Ms. [redacted] has any further questions, she should contact her account representative Jummey B. at ###-###-####, extension [redacted], or Catherine M. at extension [redacted]. Our Customer Service Department is also available to answer any questions or concerns and can be reached at ###-###-####, Monday - Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. CT, and Saturday 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. CT.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. I also received a phone notification that this action was taken.Thank you very much for resolving this issue.[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. I received the check on May 24, 2016. Thank you!

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the rebuttal filed by [redacted] regarding his account with Ditech Financial LLC (Ditech). As Mr. [redacted] indicates, after the loan modification was applied to his account, the next payment due was $370.26 for the June 1, 2014 due date. We received check 588, in the amount of $366.16, from Mr. [redacted] on June 5, 2014. Since this payment was not enough to complete the June 1, 2014 payment, $4.10 was advanced to complete this payment and $370.26 was applied to his account on June 26, 2014, and backdated to June 5, 2014. Therefore, the unapplied funds balance was -$4.10. We received check 590, in the amount of $367.49, July 2, 2014. Since this amount was not enough to complete the July 1, 2014 payment of $467.26, this payment was placed into unapplied funds. This brought the unapplied funds balance to a positive balance of $363.39. Enclosed is a copy of the billing statement dated July 8, 2014, indicating the amount due was $934.52 for the July 1, 2014 and August 1, 2014 due dates, with $363.39 in unapplied funds. We received check 593, in the amount of $368.45, on August 2, 2014. This payment was combined with the unapplied funds balance of $363.39 and $467.26 was applied to the July 1, 2014 due date. This left an unapplied funds balance of $264.58. Enclosed is a copy of the billing statement dated August 8, 2014, indicating the amount due was $885.95 for the August 1, 2014 and September 1, 2014 due dates, with $264.58 in unapplied funds. Enclosed is a copy of the billing statement dated September 8, 2014. Since we had not yet received another payment, this billing statement indicated the amount due was $1,304.64 for the August 1, 2014, September 1, 2014, and October 1, 2014 due dates. We received check 595, in the amount of $318.92, on September 17, 2014. This payment was combined with the unapplied funds balance of $264.58 and $467.26 was applied to the August 1, 2014 due date. This left an unapplied funds balance of $116.24. Enclosed is a copy of the billing statement dated October 8, 2014, indicating the amount due was $1,294.73 for the September 1, 2014, October 1, 2014, and November 1, 2014 due dates, with $116.24 in unapplied funds. We received check 278, in the amount of $318.92, on October 16, 2014. This payment was combined with the unapplied funds balance of $116.24, and $418.69 was applied to the September 1, 2014 due date. This left an unapplied funds balance of $16.47. We also received check 224, in the amount of $318.92 on November 5, 2014. Since this amount was not enough to complete the October 1, 2014 payment of $418.69, these funds were placed in unapplied funds. This brought the unapplied funds balance to $335.39. Enclosed is a copy of the billing statement dated November 8, 2014, indicating the amount due was $1,333.39 for the October 1, 2014, November 1, 2014, and December 1, 2014 due dates, with $335.39 in unapplied funds. Also enclosed is a copy of the billing statement dated December 8, 2014, indicating that the amount due was $1,790.74 for the October 1, 2014, November 1, 2014, December 1, 2014, and January 1, 2015 due dates.We received check 281, in the amount of $318.92, on December 19, 2014. This payment was combined with the unapplied funds balance of $335.39, and $418.69 was applied to the October 1, 2014 due date. This left an unapplied funds balance of $235.62. We have enclosed the remaining billing statements up through the most current billing statement dated August 16, 2016. Please note that the monthly home payment was $201.50 and the monthly escrow payment was $117.42, for a total amount of $318.92; however, as indicated in our previous response, there were also advances that were being collected with the monthly payments for assessed legal fees. Enclosed is a copy of the escrow analysis dated July 21, 2014, advising that the new monthly payment would be $418.69 beginning with the September 1, 2014 due date and a copy of our correspondence that was mailed to Mr. [redacted] dated October 11, 2014, which gave a breakdown of how these advances were being collected. Mr. [redacted] has continued to send less than the amount due each month even though his billing statements, escrow analysis and previous letter to him advised of the correct amount due. Our records also indicate that our representatives have explained the advances owed to Mr. [redacted] several times and of his delinquent account. As of today's date, Mr. [redacted]'s account is in a foreclosure status. He will need to contact his account representative listed below to obtain the amount needed in order to reinstate his account.If Mr. [redacted] has any further questions, he may contact his account representatives Kris L. at (800) [redacted], extension [redacted], or Brett W. at extension [redacted]. Our Customer Service Department is also available to answer any questions or concerns and can be reached at (800) [redacted], Monday - Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. CT, and Saturday 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. CT.

Ditech makes every effort to credit payments as requested. Payment are processed electronically and the application of the payment is processed per the below payment hierarchy:1.) Regular monthly payment 2.) Escrow advances3.) Corporate advances4.) Late fees5.) NSF fees6.) Other fees7.) Principal...

balanceRecords reflect the payment of $20,000.00, received on April 22, 2016, was applied toward the principal balance. On May 19, 2016, the payment of $2,000.00 was received and paid the May 1, 2016, due date of $657.66 and the June 1, 2016, due date of $630.92. The additional $711.42 was applied toward the principal balance. Pursuant to [redacted]'s request, the $20,000.00 and $2,000.00 payments were reversed and reapplied on June 4, 2016. The payments were posted as indicated below:- May 1, 2016, due date of $630.92 - June 1, 2016, due date of $630.92 - Principal payment of $19,369.08- Principal payment of $1,369.08In addition, the late fee of $26.74 was waived. We apologize for the dissatisfaction and length of the time it took Ditech to correct this error. As of today, the account is reflecting next due for the July 1, 2016, due date in the amount of $626.62.If [redacted] has any further questions, she should contact her account representative Ami C. at ###-###-####, extension 55116, or Shanna S. at extension 57119. Our Customer Service Department is also available to answer any questions or concerns and can be reached at ###-###-####, Monday - Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. CT, and Saturday 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. CT.[redacted]

Attached is the signed Authorization and Consent to Release Form.  Thank you  [redacted].

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the complaint filed by [redacted] regarding her account with Ditech Financial LLC (“Ditech”).  Our records indicate that the subordination request was not denied. However, the subordination request was submitted with a new loan amount in...

excess of the maximum allowed per the investor guidelines. Enclosed is a copy of the subordination requirements. Key item number seven indicates that the new loan amount is limited to the unpaid principal of the existing first mortgage loan. This means that any closing costs, escrow, or fees need to be paid out of pocket by the customer. We did confirm that the new lender, Fidelity Co-Operative Bank, had the correct investor requirements for this account. Please note that Ditech is unable to waive the investor's guidelines and we are not authorized to make exceptions, as we would be in violation of the servicing contract we have with the investor. Records show that our Subordination Department sent five separate requests to Fidelity Co-Operative Bank requesting additional documents, such as a valid authorization and updated title, and that the loan amount be lowered. On April 11, 2016, Fidelity Co-Operative Bank provided the final item required to complete the subordination within the investor guidelines and the subordination was approved and shipped April 13, 2016 via FedEx [redacted]. If Mrs. [redacted] has any further questions, she should contact her account representative Jesse H. at ###-###-####, extension [redacted], or Travis C. at extension [redacted]. Our Customer Service Department is also available to answer any questions or concerns and can be reached at ###-###-####, Monday - Friday 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., and Saturday 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. CT.  Sincerely, Jared [redacted] Customer Service Correspondence Supervisor

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the complaint filed by [redacted] regarding his account with Ditech Financial LLC (Ditech).We would like to apologize for any dissatisfaction Mr. [redacted] has encountered. Records indicate that Mr. [redacted]'s payment, received June 29, 2016, was applied to...

the principal balance. However, this payment was reallocated on July 30, 2016, and applied to the August 1, 2016 payment as Mr. [redacted] intended. The payment was backdated to June 29, 2016 to ensure Mr. [redacted] received proper credit to his account.Please be assured that this matter did not cause a late fee to be assessed to the account, or negative information to be reported to the credit reporting agencies. On July 30, 2016, a billing statement was generated and mailed to Mr. [redacted] showing the next amount due on his account is $1,162.41 for the September 1, 2016 due date.If Mr. [redacted] has any further questions, he should contact his account representative Jalisa H. at ###-###-####, extension [redacted], or Emmanuel M. at extension [redacted]. Our Customer Service Department is also available to answer any questions or concerns and can be reached at ###-###-####, Monday -Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. CT, and Saturday 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. CT.

[redacted]corresponding documents attached. RE: Case #[redacted], Glen [redacted]Dear Angela [redacted]:Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the complaint filed by Glen [redacted] regarding their account with Ditech Financial LLC (Ditech).Our records indicate that the payment of $180.00 remitted via check number 0000995204 was received by Ditech on May 02, 2016; however, a complete account number was not listed on the check, nor did the name or address on the check match any of our accounts.  Since we  were unable to locate the account the funds were intended to be applied to, the funds were mailed back to Darlina [redacted] via check to 12218 Calle Sombra, Moreno Valley, CA 92552 on May 16, 2016.  Since the funds were returned and not applied to the account we are unable to change the credit reporting for the May 01, 2016 due date.  Ditech is legally required to report accurate information and therefore is prohibited from changing credit reporting as a courtesy or to facilitate restoration of Mr. [redacted]'s credit rating.Please note that in accordance with Mr. [redacted]'s claim that the funds were not returned to Darlina [redacted], we have reissued the check for $180.00.  A copy of Darlina [redacted]'s original check payment has been enclosed for Mr. [redacted]'s reference.If Glen [redacted] has any further questions, he should contact Our Customer Service Department at (800)643-0202, Monday - Friday, 7:00 a.a. to 8:00 p.m. CT, and Saturday 7;00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. CT.Sincerely,Shea [redacted]Customer Service Correspondence Supervisorcc: GLEN [redacted], [redacted]RRA0rio0dsl

April 28, 2016 [redacted] Revdex.com OF MINNESOTA AND NORTH DAKOTA 220 S RIVER RIDGE CIR BURNSVILLE MN 55337            RE:  Case #[redacted] Dear [redacted]: Thank you for the opportunity to respond to...

the complaint filed by [redacted] regarding her account with Ditech Financial LLC (“Ditech”). We understand [redacted]’s concerns.  Please be assured that her correspondence has been reviewed with the appropriate department management and the following response is provided.         Account records indicate your payment of $650.00 was received on April 5, 2016 but was not immediately posted to your account.  On April 27, 2016, the referenced payment correctly posted to your account.  The transaction was backdated to April 5, 2016 to ensure proper credit to your account.  Please be advised, there has been no negative reporting to the credit bureaus. Ditech apologizes for any inconvenience this matter has caused. Enclosed for your convenience is a copy of the payoff quote good through May 7, 2016. We again apologize for any dissatisfaction this matter may have caused.  If you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact our Customer Service Department at ###-###-####, Monday - Friday, 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., and Saturday 7 a.m. to 1 p.m. CT.  Sincerely, Shea [redacted] Customer Service Correspondence Supervisor /ars/51/ cc: [redacted]   [redacted]       Columbus, OH 43213  [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:I have sent ditech all the requested paperwork I also had a attorney call ditech to explain to them that the paperwork sent was legal documents ditech still refused to except the paperwork sign and filed with the clerk of court in livingston parish where the mobile home is located ditech / greentree had received all the documents more then one time I don't understand why they keep asking for the same documents they did the same thing when I sent the insurance check and all the estimates this is what they do keep asking for paperwork documents they have already received

Check needs to be reissued in my name. I approve and certify this complaint.

I am rejecting this response because:
What is the definition of a loan modification? What is a mortgage modification? A loan modification is a permanent restructuring of the mortgage where one or more of the terms of a borrower's loan are changed to provide a more affordable payment. With a loan modification, the lender may agree to do one of more of the following to reduce your monthly payment: reduce the interest rate. Mortgage modification is a process where the terms of a mortgage are modified outside the original terms of the contract agreed to by the lender and borrower (i.e. mortgagee and mortgagor). In general, any loan can be modified, and the general process is referred to as loan modification or debt rescheduling   April 21 2015   Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) took action against Green Tree Servicing, LLC, for mistreating mortgage borrowers who were trying to save their homes from foreclosure. The mortgage servicer failed to honor modifications for loans transferred from other servicers, demanded payments before providing loss mitigation options, delayed decisions on short sales, and harassed and threatened overdue borrowers. Green Tree has agreed to pay $48 million in restitution to victims, and a $15 million civil money penalty for its illegal actions. Green Tree failed consumers who were struggling by prioritizing collecting payments over helping homeowners,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “When homeowners in distress had their mortgages transferred to Green Tree, their previous foreclosure relief plans were not maintained. We are holding Green Tree accountable for its unlawful conduct  THIS IS MY SITUATION THEY TALK ME IN TO KEEP MAKING PAYMENTS THAT I CULD NOT AFFORD ON THE PROMISE THAT THEY WOULD MODIFY MI LOAN MODIFICATION As a servicer, Green Tree is responsible for, among other things, creating and sending monthly statements to borrowers, collecting payments, and processing payments. For troubled borrowers, it administers short sale and foreclosure relief programs provided by the owner of the loan. These “loss mitigation” programs provide alternatives to foreclosure. Green Tree is responsible for soliciting borrowers for these programs, collecting their applications, determining eligibility, and implementing the loss mitigation program for qualified borrowers. The CFPB and FTC allege that Green Tree engaged in illegal practices when servicing loans that it acquired from other servicers. According to the complaint filed by the CFPB and FTC, on a number of occasions, Green Tree failed to honor loan modifications that consumers had entered into with their prior servicers and insisted that the consumer pay their original, higher monthly payment. Green Tree also failed at times to get the information and documentation from the prior servicer that it needed to accurately collect payments from consumers GREEN TREE RECEIVED MY LOAN FROM GMAC WHERE ALSO I WASPROMISE A LOAN MODIFICATION PASS THE 6 MONTHS TRIAL PERIOD AND THEN THEY SAID THEY NO LONGER WILL SERVICE MY LOAN AND I LOST OVER 2 TWO YEARS THEN GREEN TREE GAVE ME A SO CALLED LOAN MODIFICATION WHERE THEY CAN NO PLACE ME IN ANY PROGRAM THAT AT THE TIME WHERE IN PLACE ADD $146.000 TO MY PRINCIPAL AND 20 MONTHS LATER FIND THAT THE TAXES FOR 2010 AND 2011 WHERE NOT PAID VERY CONVINIENT SINCE IN NEARLY 30 MONTHS I PAID OVER $135.000 AND ONLY $2800 GOING TO THE PRINCIPAL. Green Tree demanded payments before providing loss mitigation options, delayed decisions on short sales, and resorted to illegal practices to collect mortgage payments from consumers who fell behind on their loans, including false threats, repeated calls, and revealing debts to third parties, like employers. Green Tree’s failures as a mortgage servicer hurt homeowners. In many cases LIKE ME WHERE I AM ABOUT TO LOOSE MY HOUSE ONE MORE TIME   I DONT ACCEPT  THE RESPONSE FROM DITECH FINANCIAL LLC WHERE THEY WORK WITH  NUMBERS  THAT MAKE NO SENSE TO ARRIVE TO THE $146.000 IN LATE FEES WHEN IT WAS NOT MY FAULT AND I WAS MESLEAD AND THEY RECOGNIZED WHEN I WENT TO MEET WITH THEIR OWN PEOPLE IN FTLADERDALE LIKE I SAID WHEN I PLACE MY COMPLAIN I DONT WANT THEN TO GIVE MY ANYTHING ONLY WHAT IS FEAR AND LEGAL

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/07/28) */
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the complaint filed by [redacted] regarding her account with Green Tree Servicing, LLC ("Green Tree").
Enclosed is a copy of the letter mailed to The Revdex.com Servicing...

Mississippi Inc. on July 14, 2015 in response to Ms. [redacted]'s issues. We stand by our previous response.
If Ms. [redacted] has additional questions regarding these issues, she may contact the account representative, Cheryl at (800) [redacted] extension [redacted] or Ruby at extension [redacted]. Our Customer Service is also available to assist and can be reached toll-free at (800)-[redacted], Monday - Friday 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., and Saturday 7 a.m. to 1 p.m. CST.
Sincerely,
Shea [redacted]
Customer Service Correspondence Supervisor

I am rejecting this response because:Because Ditech is not addressing my concern of why make a consumer complete Loss Mitigation Forms if the account is not delinquent 90 days. Therefore, until I receive the answer to my question, I will keep complaining until I know why we were made to complete those forms knowing the account is not delinquent. As I have stated that was a wasted of  a year to be told no because the account was not delinquent, and we should have been advised of this back in August 2016 when all this began. No, I do not accept this response, and I demand an answer & something other than we apologize & sorry for the inconvenience from Ditech. On
October 03, 2017, Mr. Timothy [redacted], had responded on the behalf of Ditech,
LLC (servicer) & Fannie Mae (investor) in regards to Ms. [redacted] F. [redacted]’s
compliant against the decision of loan modification.        
            Once again, Mr. Timothy
[redacted] (October 03, 2017) & now  Ms. Shea [redacted] (October 17, 2017) , has neglected to inform us why Ditech, LLC made us to
complete the loss mitigation forms TWICE knowing that account
was NOT
DELINQUENT 90 DAYS. As I have stated, we fully understand why
decision was made; however, the decision that was provided could have prevented
a lot of wasted time, long waiting, and paperwork to be completed if was advise
at the beginning process. Ditech LLC made this a difficult process, and stated
the first set of forms that were not submitted on time & the required
documents were missing. However, the forms were sent in on time, and had the
fax confirmation to prove the documents were sent in on time.
            As I have stated, NO
ONE from Ditech LLC or Fannie Mae had even made an attempt to
advise us to BE APPROVED FOR THE LOSS MITIGATION PROGRAM THE ACCOUNT MUST BE
DELINQUENT. Therefore, if SOMEONE would have advised
from reviewing Ms. [redacted]’s account it appears that the account is NOT
DELINQUENT 90 DAYS to complete the Loss Mitigation Program Forms.
Then at this point we could have asked FOR what other options we
could have made to Ms. [redacted]’s mortgage cheaper. ONCE AGAIN, we
were advised to complete the Loss Mitigation to make Ms. [redacted]’s mortgage
cheaper.
Yes, the representative did advise Mr.
[redacted]’s of the “Know Your Options” website after the decision was made on
August 08, 2017 OF DENIED BASED ON THE ACCOUNT IS NOT DELINQUENT 90 DAYS as
Mr. Timothy [redacted] stated. However, the Know Your Options is a good tool to use
to let consumers know if they would meet the qualifications of a Loss
Mitigation Program, but we did not know about this website until August 11,
2017.
 In addition, Mr. [redacted] stated, we were
provided other options in regards to Loss Mitigation on August 11, 2017. If the
representative did provide additional Loss Mitigation options from DITECH,
LLC, THEN WHY ARE WE COMPLAINING AGAINST DITECH, LLC & WHERE ARE THOSE
ADDITIONAL LOSS MITIGATION FORMS THAT COULD BE FILLED OUT?
 Furthermore, Fannie Mae’s website do explain
“Know Your Options;” however, the website do explain in details the
qualifications of Fannie Mae’s Loss Mitigation Program, and that any Fannie Mae
mortgage accounts MUST BE DELINQUENT 90 DAYS. 
Since the representative did advise of
the “Know Your Options” website, here is the proof that Ditech, LLC is aware of
the guidelines of the process to approve a consumer for the Fannie Mae’s Loss
Mitigation Program. Therefore, IF we were advised prior of
August 11, 2017 of this information, then we could figure another way to make
the Ms. [redacted]’s mortgage cheaper.
            After filing a complaint the first
time against Ditech, LLC, and we were made to complete the LOSS MITIGATION FORMS FOR A
SECOND TIME. Once again we were advised that some documents were
missing & additional documents are required to complete the process of the
Loss Mitigation Forms, but not the account is not DELINQUENT 90 DAYS. Finally,
the representative “Camry R” that is stated by Mr. [redacted] in his response to the
complaint on September 24, 2017, is not the account representative that we have
been working with during this process. The account representative name is
“Wendy W.,” and Wendy W. is the representative stating that Ms. [redacted]’s is not
approved based on the account not being Delinquent 90 days.
            Until we receive an answer on WHY WE
WERE MADE TO FILE THEM FORMS OUT TWICE KNOWING THE ACCOUNT WAS NOT DELINQUET 90
DAYS, then I am going to complain until this made right.
 
Thanks
 
[redacted]
 
On September 08, 2017, Mr. Timothy
[redacted], had responded on the behalf of Ditech, LLC (servicer) & Fannie Mae
(investor) in regards to Ms. [redacted] F. [redacted]’s compliant against the decision
of her loan modification. Yes, Ms. [redacted] is aware that the decision of the
loan modification was based on the guidelines of Fannie Mae’s loan modification
program.
However, Ms. [redacted] & [redacted] wanted to know why, Ms. [redacted], was made to complete the loan
modification twice, and both Ditech LLC & Fannie knew that Ms. [redacted]’s
mortgage was not delinquent. Mr. [redacted] has spoken to several representatives
at Ditech LLC, the account representative “Wendy W.,” Timothy [redacted], and
Claudia with Fannie Mae, and none of those individuals had advised, Ms. [redacted]
or Mr. [redacted], that the mortgage does not meet the qualification of the loan
modification program.
As matter of fact, Mr. [redacted] was
required twice to answers questions to see if the account met the qualification
of the loan modification program, and each time representative was advised
that, Ms. [redacted] is barely making the mortgage payments based on her SSI income
of $809. Once again, nobody informed them that the account had to be 60 days
delinquent or death or divorce or disability. Mr. [redacted] stated, “Pursuant to the investor’s modification
guidelines, a loan applicant must show imminent default if the loan is not more
than sixty days past due. Imminent default is considered one of the following
events: • Death • Divorce • Disability Ditech’s records reflect that we received
a completed loss mitigation application from Ms. [redacted] on July 24, 2017. Ms.
[redacted]’s loan was reviewed for a modification and the enclosed modification
denial letter was sent on August 8, 2017, as the loan is current and Ms. [redacted]
did not provide any evidence of imminent default.” If Ms. [redacted] was advised of
these requirements before completing all the required documents twice, Ms.
[redacted] caused have requested for another form of assistance; however, Ms.
[redacted] was not advised & that is not just.
Furthermore,
Mr. [redacted] stated, “Ms. [redacted] is able to appeal the decision if she believes
the determination was made in error.”Once a complaint was submitted to the
Consumer Finance on, August 26, 2017, that was Ms. [redacted] filing appeal against
the decision that was made that was not brought to her attention prior to
completing those documents. 
In addition, Mr. [redacted] stated, “We are committed to working with Ms.
[redacted] on her loss mitigation needs. Please have Ms. [redacted] contact Ditech at
###-###-#### with additional questions or concerns.”However, Mr. [redacted] did
call on, August 11, 2017, and the representative advised Mr. [redacted] to sell Ms.
[redacted]’s home since she cannot afford to keep the house.  Therefore, Ditech LLC was not committed on
working with Ms. [redacted], and no additional options were provided on the
committed on working with Ms. [redacted] when the letter from Ditech LLC was sent
on August 08, 2017.
Finally,
why were the documents made to be completed & individuals were aware the
account was not delinquent. Therefore, this is not just & is wrong on the
behalf of Ditech LLC & Fannie Mae who are “committed to working with Ms.
[redacted].”
 
Thanks
 
[redacted]
 
Below is the letter sent to Consumer Finance on
August 26, 2017.
August 26, 2017
 
 
The purpose of this letter is to file a
complaint against Ditech LLC (servicer) & Fannie Mae (investor).
Around July or August 2016, [redacted] had contacted Ditech (servicer) for some assistance on the mortgage
payments. Ms. [redacted] advised the representative the mortgage payments are
almost amount received for her SSI. Thus, Ms. [redacted] is experiencing financial
hardship due increase of expenses around the house. The representative
confirmed that Ditech can aid with this request, but Ms. [redacted] is required
answer a few questions to see if qualified to receive some forms from Fannie
Mae to aid with her request of a manageable mortgage payment.
I, [redacted], am [redacted]’s
son, and I assisted my mother with answering those questions & filling out
the forms; however, Ms. [redacted] or I was not advised the main requirement
required to be approve for assistance from Ditech & Fannie Mae. Ms. [redacted]
& I was never advised by all the representatives & supervisors from
Ditech, letters from Ditech, missing documents from Ditech & Claudia w/
Fannie Mae, Ditch’s response from the file compliant, Claudia 15 days
investigating against Ditech, emails from Claudia, and phone calls with Claudia
that we were advised that Ms. [redacted]’s mortgage payments must be 60
to 90 days delinquent before providing any assistance.
 
Therefore,
our thought process is why send the forms for assistance twice, why tell us
what documents were missing, why send all the required documents & forms
for assistance, and why do a 15 days investigation if Ditech & Claudia w/
Fannie Mae both knew Ms. [redacted]’s mortgage payments were not delinquent &
the account would not be approved because of this reason.
When Mr. [redacted] called Ditech on August
11, 2017 to see why, and a representative stated it was Fannie Mae who made the
decision & that maybe my mother should sell her home if she could not
afford her home. However, Claudia w/ Fannie Mae stated it was Ditech who made
the decision, and it was nothing Fannie Mae could do as an investor. Then Ms.
Claudia refused to provide Mr. [redacted] with a supervisor, that all supervisors
have a set schedule, the supervisors do not wait after 5pm to speak with
consumers, and stated did advised Mr. [redacted] of the 60 – 90 days
delinquent. 
Thus, I reviewed all letters, documents,
& emails very careful before writing this letter, and it was nothing said about the
60 – 90 days delinquent requirements.  Now, Ms. [redacted]’s mortgage payments are going
to be $862 w/ a SSI income of $809. All the letters & documents stated some
kind of assistance would be provided; however, we only got a rejected letter.
 
Thanks
[redacted]

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the complaint filed by [redacted] received on June 21, 2016, regarding her account with Ditech Financial LLC ("Ditech").Please be advised, we are unable to provide account information to the buyer's attorney without a signed letter of authorization from...

[redacted]. The authorization must show that we are authorized to release information specifically to the buyer's attorney. It should also include what information we are allowed to disclose. [redacted] can provide the signed authorization to the Ditech address or fax number listed on this response.The servicing of your account was transferred from CitiMortgage Inc. ("CitiMortgage") to Ditech on September 1, 2014. The transfer of servicing does not affect the account terms and conditions, other than those related to the servicing of the account.Please be advised, Ditech can not release a lien on behalf of another entity and our lien will not be released until the loan is considered paid in full. Enclosed is a copy of the Assignment of Deed of Trust from Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB, to CitiMortgage. Also enclosed is a copy of the recorded Mortgage.If [redacted] has any further questions, she should contact her account representative Hazel G. at ###-###-####, extension [redacted], or Rita G. at extension [redacted]. Our Customer Service Department is also available to answer any questions or concerns and can be reached at ###-###-####, Monday - Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. CT, and Saturday 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. CT.

May 11, 2016 [redacted] Revdex.com OF MINNESOTA AND NORTH DAKOTA 220 S RIVER RIDGE CIR BURNSVILLE MN 55337            RE:  Case # [redacted], [redacted] Dear [redacted]: Thank you for the opportunity to respond to...

the complaint filed by [redacted] regarding her account with Ditech Financial LLC (“Ditech”). We understand [redacted]’s concerns.  Please be assured that her correspondence has been reviewed with the appropriate department management and the following response is provided.         Please be advised, the current Private Mortgage Insurance (“PMI”) payment is $16.50 per month.  The $49.50 is three months of PMI payments.  These funds were not withdrawn from your escrow account. Due to the recent upgrade, the account history was migrated to our new servicing software.  This transfer of information unfortunately shows as a disbursement.  We would like to apologize for any confusion this may have caused.  Records indicate that the PMI is scheduled to automatically terminate on July 1, 2017.  For your convenience, a copy of the Private Mortgage Insurance Disclosure is included.  If you would like to request to cancel the PMI sooner, you may submit a signed request along with authorization to complete and appraisal to the address listed below. Please be advised, the approximate cost of the appraisal would be $425.00. Ditech Financial [redacted]
[redacted] St. Paul, MN 55102 We again apologize for any dissatisfaction this matter may have caused.  If you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact our Customer Service Department at ###-###-####, Monday - Friday, 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., and Saturday 7 a.m. to 1 p.m. CT.  Sincerely, Shea [redacted] Customer Service Correspondence Supervisor /ars/36/ cc:  [redacted]      [redacted]        Piqua, OH 45356

May 6, 2016 [redacted] Revdex.com OF MINNESOTA AND NORTH DAKOTA 220 S RIVER RIDGE CIR BURNSVILLE MN 55337            RE:  Case #[redacted], [redacted] Dear [redacted]: Thank you for the opportunity to respond to...

the complaint filed by [redacted] regarding her account with Ditech Financial LLC (“Ditech”). We understand [redacted]‘s concerns. Please be assured that her correspondence has been reviewed with the appropriate department management and the following response is provided.         Pursuant to [redacted]’s request, we have reivewed the credit reporting for her account. The account had previously been reported as foreclosure intitated for the account, but not as a repossessed property. We have submitted the updated information to the major credit reporting agencies (Equifax, Experian, Innovis, and Trans Union) to reflect the account status of closed, was 120 + days past due. The individual credit reporting agencies may take up to 3-5 business days for this information to be updated by the Credit Bureaus. Please keep this letter for verification of the change. We again apologize for any dissatisfaction this matter may have caused. If you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact our Customer Service Department at (800) 643-0202, Monday - Friday, 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., and Saturday 7 a.m. to 1 p.m. CT.  Sincerely, [redacted] Customer Service Correspondence Supervisor /asw/36/ cc:  [redacted]          [redacted]
[redacted] Tell us why here...

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.I must add that these people are nothing but professional liars and scammers.  In the 2 months it took me to get this check which should have taken 1 week to receive I needed to make over 100 phone calls.  I was lied to many times and heard differing stories from every rep I spoke to.  This place is a mockery and should be shut down by the Government for their tactics.  It is sad that people are forced to deal with this company without choice as loans are sold and transferred to them without the borrowers consent.  I refinanced my loan just not to deal with these people.  Their reputation was so bad they were forced to change their name.  New name same garbage.[redacted]