Litvin Law Firm, P.C.

*** *** ***
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
*** *** ** ***
Dear *** ***,
We are in receipt of *** *** ***’s, complaint
against our firm dated 6/*/Please see our below response for your records.
We are distraught about *** ***’s most recent application for modification being denied due to affordability standards; however these reasons were explained verbally, in detail, on our last communication with *** *** on 6/*/We were not provided a written explanation of the denial from the lender at that timeWe advised *** *** of her liquidation options to further prevent the advancement of foreclosure, and she stated we would speak to her or her daughter the following weekWe have still not heard back from *** *** or her daughter, with the exception of this complaintWe finally received the written denial from the lender via fax on 6/**/2014, and forwarded that denial to the clientDespite *** ***’s months of arrearage and her assertions that Bank of America wants to 'sell her home', at this time of this response she is NOT in active foreclosure and there is NO sale date scheduled for her home
This final cause for denial should not have come as any surprise for *** ***, as she indicated on our first consultation with her on 2/**/that she had been declined for similar reasons previouslyShe understood from that first consultation that we would attempt further applications as FHA guidelines and programs changed, but that with her income, she didn’t really seem to qualify. She also understood that if she would be declined, our main focus was always preventing her from losing her home to forcible foreclosure, not simply seeking a modification approval.
Throughout our representation, several requests for documents would be returned late, or missing crucial documents or *** *** would not respond for several weeksOn 6/**/and 4/*/2014, we sent out MIA notices, indentifying our intentions to withdraw as counsel for non communication if client did not respondAfter the most recent MIA-Final notice, *** *** actually responded after our deadline for withdrawalAs a courtesy, we rescinded our withdrawal in order to resubmit the loss mitigation package one final time, again showing all possible income, including her daughter’s contribution to the homeUnfortunately, even with her daughter’s contribution income, this was not enough to satisfy the FHA/investor guidelines.
On our advisement of the final, hard denial to *** *** directly, she seemed to understand that the reasons for the denial were due to her being unable to show sufficient income to be approved for modification according to FHA guidelines, and that she would need to show changes of her circumstances in order for them to entertain any further review such as renting out a room to show extra income, or by finding a non borrower occupant contributor, or showing a substantial increase of income.
We advised *** ***, although she is months behind on her mortgage, after all our attempts at workout with the
lender and with the lender’s counsel, the loan is no longer in active foreclosure status at this timeOur final advisement to *** ***, was to consider short sale of the property as it did not appear that she could afford it based on the submitted finances
We urge *** *** to call our office, as we arranged and agreed on our last communication so she can be advised as to what steps she can take moving forward from hereAlthough reinstating the loan may not be possible through modification based on the
limited income in the home and the federal guidelines of FHA loans, we want to be clear that *** *** understands what she needs to do to still avoid any foreclosure sale or deficiency the lender may place against her in the futureWe will also provide her a summary of work performed on her file, as was requested in her complaint, once she can advise on preferred method of delivery
We look forward to hearing back from Ms Huff, and addressing any remaining questions and concerns head on.
Best Regards,
*** ***
*** ** *** ***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made
by the business in reference to complaint ID# ***, and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:
Absolutely notI don't listen to that channel everProve itEven if someone did 'contact' you, where's your written signed and dated agreement that you can solicit someones cellphone ?? I request proof that I contacted your offices and allowed you to txt me. Otherwise I would request to be compensated for my time.Attached is of the txts I received.
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above
Sincerely,*** ***

This individual contacted us on March **, in response to a related commercial we ran on 1010wins radioWe were merely contacting someone that had contacted us firstAs such, we will not be providing any compensation

My sister in law had no problem with your firm. She then gave me the number to call.We had someone help us then allof a sudden someone else was helping us. That happened 3 times. I didn't think anything about it. This last person we had I told him of the offer we received instead of saying ill look at it. He said take it. I thought that was odd he didn't fight for us. Our escrow was low and our payment went back up. They deserve what they get.

My sister in law had no problem with your firm. She then gave me the number to call.We had someone help us then allof a sudden someone else was helping us. That happened 3 times. I didn't think anything about it. This last person we had I told him of the offer we received instead of saying ill look at it. He said take it. I thought that was odd he didn't fight for us. Our escrow was low and our payment went back up. They deserve what they get.

Review: WELL THE LAW FRIM CALLED LITVIN LAW FRIM.P.C. OVER AYEAR AND 7 MUOTHS AGO SAID THAT THEY COULD HELP US IN GETING ARE MODIFICATION LOAN BUT SO THAT WE CAN KEEP ARE HOUSE. WE ARE TO OLD NOW TO UP AND MOVE . THEY AGRED TO 500.OO A MOUTH I TOLD THEM THAT WE WERE ON SS INCOME AND OLNY ABLE TO GIVE ARE MORAGE PAYMENT TO THEM THEY SAID THAT NOT ONLY THEY COULD GET THE DEED TO ARE HOUSE FOR US.AND THAT HE WOLUD HAVE A BRQUE WITH US WHEN HE GOT THIS SETLLE . THE NEXT THING I KNOW IS THAT I WASNT WITH THE FRIM NOR WAS THERE A LAWER NAME [redacted] .Desired Settlement: IS TO BE ABLE TO LIVE OUT THE TIME WE HAVE LEFT HERE AND ARE MORAGE ONE AND TWO BE PUT TO GETHER AT 454.00 THANK YA FOR HELPING US .

Business

Response:

Dear [redacted],

We are currently representing this client in an active role. We began our representation of [redacted] and [redacted] on December ** 2011, in defense of foreclosure and all mortgage loan mitigation matters. She was assigned to our of-Counsel attorney in the state of Ohio, [redacted] and was assigned to the Ohio paralegal team, which from the period of March until June of 2013 included also included former employee [redacted].

On December [redacted], 2011 we received our initial authorization documents, signed by the client, now allowing us to have communication with their lender. Upon our initial lender interview, we determined that prior to hiring our law firm, the client had been already been approved for a loan modification, however they did not accept the agreement that would have restructured their mortgage payments, and kept them out of foreclosure. With an understanding that the lender would not reinstate the offer, we began a lengthy battle to explore all loss mitigation options. The bank repeatedly refused to review for any modification options based on the investor's guidelines, and the borrower's rejection of the original offer. We continually challenged this refusal based on numerous grounds, while we investigated all defenses of forcible foreclosure sale and deficiency judgments from any lawsuit related to the non-payment of the mortgage. We have maintained continual communicatio n with their lender in efforts to prevent the escalation of foreclosure until we can get to reasonable resolution options.

At no time was any guarantee made to client towards acquiring clear title to the home. In fact, in our retainer agreement signed and executed by the client, we include Section 9, with clearly states no guarantee of end result can ever be made.

DISCLAIMER OF GUARANTY. Although the Law Firm may offer an opinion about possible results regarding the services herein, THE LAW FIRM CANNOT AND DOES NOT GUARANTY ANY PARTICULAR RESULT regarding principal reductions and/or interest reductions. Client acknowledges that the Law Firm has made no promises about the outcome and that any opinion offered by the Law Firm in the future will not constitute a guarantee.

While attempting to get a file in review or explore any other avenues toward restructure of the loan, we have repeatedly asked the clients for the necessary documents to attempt this appeal and re-submission, however, the client has not fully complied with these numerous requests from us. We need to show the clients ability to repay their financial obligation to engage the lender toward every avenue of resolution. In the recent weeks, we have not been able to communicate directly with the borrowers, but only receiving calls from their daughter, and never receiving what has been repeatedly asked for to comply with all federal, treasury, and lender guidelines. We have gone as far as to waive some of our retainer fees as courtesy for them, as we understand they are on a low fixed income.

We still see a path towards resolution, solving the issues with their mortgage, but it does require our clients to be proactive, responsive and provident in regards to documentation, communication, and informational requests from our firm. With their cooperation, we hope to be able to achieve a resolution that helps keeps the [redacted] family in their home, at the most affordable payments possible.

Review: While driving I received numerous txt messages to which I had to pull over and read. These txt messages were from this law firm claiming to 'save me money' or something to that effect.

I did not ask to receive these txt messages nor am I on any 'listings' to receive these messages. The messages in total were over 104, causing my cellphone battery to die (each message the phone vibrated/rang) . Having to stop and pull over each time to read (I only get txt messages from loved ones in the need of medical help).

Now, I missed my appointment, used up valuable hourly time, costing me money as well as mental issues with respect to thinking something was wrong with a loved one as well as costing me MMS txt fees from my cellphone carrier,.Desired Settlement: I would like to be compensated with $500.00 due to a day's loss of work among all the other charges noted above.

I have screen shot of these txt messages.

Business

Response:

This individual contacted us on March **, 2014 in response to a related commercial we ran on 1010wins radio. We were merely contacting someone that had contacted us first. As such, we will not be providing any compensation.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:

1. Absolutely not. I don't listen to that channel ever.2. Prove itEven if someone did 'contact' you, where's your written signed and dated agreement that you can solicit someones cellphone ?? I request proof that I contacted your offices and allowed you to txt me. Otherwise I would request to be compensated for my time.Attached is 1 of the 104 txts I received.

In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.

Sincerely,

Review: I have been paying Litvin Law Firm $500 a month for almost 3 years to modify a loan I have with Bank of America to make my home affordable Communication has been terrible. I end up having to call the company numerous times to get information or they will send me a random e-mail requesting me to send more information. For the amount of money customers pay them at minimum they owe the customers a monthly update to know where their mortgage status was. I just found out the other day after making several calls to Litvin Law Firm that Bank of America wants to sell my house. So essentially, I am losing my house after paying Litvin Law Firm every month for the past 3 years. This amounts to over $18,000 I spent in legal fees just to lose my house. The lack of information combined with what I perceive is a half-hearted attempt to do anything about my mortgage has left me in dire straits. Had we reached an agreement some time ago I would be able to live in my home instead of being in arrears by an outrageous amount of money. Now I am losing my house.Desired Settlement: I would like Litvin Law Firm to provide me with recent proof of what they have been doing to save my house. I would also like Litvin Law Firm to examine their customer service policy since it lacks any sort of commitment or follow-through that should be required for a $500/month service. I want to know in detail why my mortgage was not renegotiated and why I am losing my house after putting my faith and money in their company.

Business

Response:

[redacted]

Dear [redacted],

We are in receipt of [redacted]’s, complaint against our firm dated 6/*/2014. Please see our below response for your records.

We are distraught about [redacted]’s most recent application for modification being denied due to affordability standards; however these reasons were explained verbally, in detail, on our last communication with [redacted] on 6/*/2014. We were not provided a written explanation of the denial from the lender at that time. We advised [redacted] of her liquidation options to further prevent the advancement of foreclosure, and she stated we would speak to her or her daughter the following week. We have still not heard back from [redacted] or her daughter, with the exception of this complaint. We finally received the written denial from the lender via fax on 6/**/2014, and forwarded that denial to the client. Despite [redacted]’s 43 months of arrearage and her assertions that Bank of America wants to 'sell her home', at this time of this response she is NOT in active foreclosure and there is NO sale date scheduled for her home.

This final cause for denial should not have come as any surprise for [redacted], as she indicated on our first consultation with her on 2/**/2012 that she had been declined for similar reasons previously. She understood from that first consultation that we would attempt further applications as FHA guidelines and programs changed, but that with her income, she didn’t really seem to qualify. She also understood that if she would be declined, our main focus was always preventing her from losing her home to forcible foreclosure, not simply seeking a modification approval.

Throughout our representation, several requests for documents would be returned late, or missing crucial documents or [redacted] would not respond for several weeks. On 6/**/2012 and 4/*/2014, we sent out MIA notices, indentifying our intentions to withdraw as counsel for non communication if client did not respond. After the most recent MIA-Final notice, [redacted] actually responded after our deadline for withdrawal. As a courtesy, we rescinded our withdrawal in order to resubmit the loss mitigation package one final time, again showing all possible income, including her daughter’s contribution to the home. Unfortunately, even with her daughter’s contribution income, this was not enough to satisfy the FHA/investor guidelines.

On our advisement of the final, hard denial to [redacted] directly, she seemed to understand that the reasons for the denial were due to her being unable to show sufficient income to be approved for modification according to FHA guidelines, and that she would need to show changes of her circumstances in order for them to entertain any further review such as renting out a room to show extra income, or by finding a non borrower occupant contributor, or showing a substantial increase of income.

We advised [redacted], although she is 43 months behind on her mortgage, after all our attempts at workout with the

lender and with the lender’s counsel, the loan is no longer in active foreclosure status at this time. Our final advisement to [redacted], was to consider short sale of the property as it did not appear that she could afford it based on the submitted finances.

We urge [redacted] to call our office, as we arranged and agreed on our last communication so she can be advised as to what steps she can take moving forward from here. Although reinstating the loan may not be possible through modification based on the

limited income in the home and the federal guidelines of FHA loans, we want to be clear that [redacted] understands what she needs to do to still avoid any foreclosure sale or deficiency the lender may place against her in the future. We will also provide her a summary of work performed on her file, as was requested in her complaint, once she can advise on preferred method of delivery.

We look forward to hearing back from Ms Huff, and addressing any remaining questions and concerns head on.

Best Regards,

Review: I was assigned to the Litvin Law Firm, P.C through the Prime Entities, they have promised me to get my loan modified within three months after I have entered into an agreement with them.

Around October of 2012, The Litvin Law Firm, P.C. offered to continue to represent me and in exchange, I had to pay them five hundred dollars per month as per the firm’s retainer agreement with them . I was very concerned about making my mortgage payments due to the fact that I did not want to lose my home. The Litvin Law Firm, P.C has promised me that they would resolved my mortgage case by forcing the bank to modified my loan and get my payments reduced within three months of being with them. They have lied to me and I am being forced to pay the firm’s monthly retainer fee without my case being resolved by them.

The Litvin Law Firm, P.C through the operation of the common enterprise, have engaged in a course if conduct to advertise, market, sell, provide, offer to provide, or arrange for other to provide MARS, including loan document and transaction reviews, mortgage loan modification services and foreclosure defense services. The firm’s market their services in a variety of ways, including through websites and directly and through their agents and telemarketer, by contacting consumers nationwide through unsolicited telemarketing calls

This letter is to explain some of the issues arising out of the legal representation since and the shutdown of the Prime Entities. I was advised to stop paying my mortgage and refrain from contacting my mortgage company to get an update on my foreclosure defense case. As per the MARS statue, the founder [redacted] of the Litvin Law Firm, P.C has obtain temporary preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief, rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, and other equitable relief in violation of Section 5 (a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. & 45 (a), the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”), 16 C.F.R. part 310, and the Mortgage Assistance Relief Services Rule (MARS Rule), 16 C.F.R part 322, recodified as Mortgage Assistance Relief Services (Regulation 0), 12 C.F. R part 1015 (“Regulation O), in connection with the marketing and sale of mortgage assistance relief services. [redacted] does not have a license to practice law in the State of North Carolina and other states and he continues to market his foreclosure defense practices to get clients that is struggling to pay their mortgage.(Please see the firm’s website www.litvinlaw.com) I very strongly believe that almost always, my case is being litigated, I should have been advised by [redacted] to seek an attorney in the county where I live but he has neglected to do so.

I would like your office to open up an investigation and get the Litvin Law Firm, P.C to reimburse my money that has been paid to them as of today. I strong believe that they have scammed me out of my money due to their illegal practices. I have already lost over 1500.00 to prime legal which [redacted] got a part of and over 3500.00 to Litvin Law.Desired Settlement: refund of my money

Business

Response:

[redacted]

[redacted]12

Dear [redacted],

We are saddened that, despite our aggressive attempts to resolve his situation, we were unable to find a resolution that was satisfactory to [redacted]. We began our representation of [redacted] in regards to foreclosure defense, and loan mitigation services on July **, 2012 upon receipt of the executed initial package. [redacted]’s case was immediately assigned to our of-counsel attorney, [redacted] ESQ. who is licensed to practice law in the state of North Carolina and recognized by his respective state bar association. Contrary to his own claims, the client was always assigned to local counsel throughout his case. As we are a law firm, and operate as such we are exempt from the MARS statutes that [redacted] is citing in his complaint.

After our Authorizations had been recognized, during our initial interview with the client's lender, it was discovered that he had been approved for 3 modifications prior to ever being represented by our firm. Due to these three offers being declined, the lender was initially rejecting all possible options for review.

I want to clearly note, at no time had anyone at Litvin Law Firm ever made any promise or guarantee towards a timeframe of resolution, or final outcome of any workout options. When [redacted] signed and executed our direct retainer in October 2012, it included Section 9 which clearly stated:

9. DISCLAIMER OF GUARANTY. Although the Law Firm may offer an opinion about possible results

regarding the services herein, THE LAW FIRM CANNOT AND DOES NOT GUARANTY ANY PARTICULAR

RESULT regarding principal reductions and/or interest reductions. Client acknowledges that the Law Firm has

made no promises about the outcome and that any opinion offered by the Law Firm in the future will not constitute

a guarantee.

In addition, at no time did anyone at Litvin Law Firm ever advise [redacted] to not make a mortgage payment. We diligently fought back against this lender’s position of refusal to review for modification options, in attempts to find any and all options to avoid forcible foreclosure sale, and deficiency judgment for our client. It was explained to the client that not every loan qualifies for principle reduction, but we will attempt all options at the best work out possible to help keep the home, which was [redacted]’s initial stated goal.

In September of 2012, after responding to our Qualified Written Request and TILA complaint, the client’s lender sold off the servicing rights of the loan to a new servicing company. We advised the client that based on this transfer we would attempt a new round of settlement requests with the new Servicer. When the loan was finally transferred we immediately prepared and submitted for this new round of workout requests. After a very lengthy and thorough review process, it was determined by the lender and investor of the loan that based on the client’s finances, the repeated failure to follow through on prior modifications, and the internal investors guidelines, that [redacted] did not qualify towards the National Mortgage Settlement Program, In House modification or HAMP program options. Despite this denial, we were able to get lender to offer a forbearance payment plan that would allow him to become current on his loan, avoid foreclosure and keep his home. Unfor tunately, our client did not find this offer acceptable, despite our advisement otherwise.

At that point in our case, we had reached out to even offer some form of pro-Bono representation to assist him in either prolonging his time in the home, and review further towards any other options to avoid forcible foreclosure sale and deficiency judgment. However, with [redacted] having stopped returning our calls, and requesting cancellation via mail, we withdrew as counsel effective May **, 2013.

Again we are saddened that we were unable to bring a resolution that [redacted] found satisfactory, however, we do feel the end result of our hard work was an offer that achieved his initial stated goal of home retention.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:

Litvin Law knew I was only one month behind on my Mortgage and led me to believe that something other than a modification was imminent. (see attached AFSOA) which was Prime access management who is currently being investigated for a scam and assigned Litvin Law to me. I have also attached an e-mail from one of their paralegals that advised me not to contact or interact with my lender. Isn’t that the same as saying not to make my mortgage payment? I am willing to settle for half of my monies back at this point (2000.00) just to be done with this situation and go on with my life.