Main Law PC

Review: Me & my wife used the services of Main Law to try to get a loan modification for our home that we previously owned. We were guaranteed that if we didn't get the loan modification, that we would get our money back, to which we not only lost our home but also contact with this company. Since then, we've left several messages with no responses, as well as not receiving the refund that we were promised. Me & my wife, didn't have the money full out at the time & agreed to pay every two weeks until the retainer fee was paid, which was $3500. It was a risk but we trusted this company & Mr. [redacted] to deliver better results than we could. We previously tried three times for a loan modification & were very unsuccessful. We received a letter from this company once we paid the fee & since then have not been able to get in contact with this company at all. We've since then lost our home & are on the verge of filing for bankruptcy. We feel that this company took advantage of us at a very fragile time in our lives, in which things are really fragile even still & would like to issue a complaint. To make a bold promise that we would get a loan modification, as well as a refund, should they not deliver is a form of intentional deceit & have cause emotional stress on us both, with this being ten times worse for my wife, whom suffers from Multiple Sclerosis. Main Law is fully aware of my wife's condition, which is why we took a chance to get a loan modification, so we could not lose our home.Desired Settlement: We would like a full refund, due to the fact that this business seemed to only care about collecting a payment from us with promises of a loan mod or a refund. If this refund is taken care of, then we will remove the complaint, no harm no foul. But if they decide to continue to ignore this complaint, we will not only file a complaint everyday but will also do all that we can to take legal action against them, no matter how long it takes to make sure that they never do this again to anyone else

Business

Response:

We were retained on April 3rd, 2014 to do the following things,

file a QWR, perform a hardship interview, perform a financial analysis of

client's position and payment capabilities, and do a comprehensive compilation,

review and analysis of client's support information and submission of

modification package to lender and investigation of Homeowners Bill of Rights

thru review of QWR responses. A few days later we submitted a modification

request with the documentation provided by client. Other information was

request which we obtained from clients. About 30 after initial submittal the

request was denied because of insufficient income.

About May 6th the clients were contacted to discuss grounds for

appeal, like financial changes. We were advised by client he is receiving GI

Benefits, when asked why he had not disclosed that earlier he stated he was not

sure whether the benefits would be terminated in the near future. We asked for

client's benefit award letter and he stated he would have to obtain one from

the government and fax to us upon receipt. On or about May 29th clients faxed

the benefits award letter and we resubmitted to OCWEN. On or about June 3rd

client informed us his GI benefits had just been terminated, however, there was

an increase in income as client's wife was working overtime and that income can

more than replace the GI income. Therefore, on or about June 3 we re-submitted

the file for a loan modification request to OCWEN based on wife's overtime.

On or about June 16th, 2014 the clients were informed the file was

in active review w/ OCWEN with the increased income from the wife's overtime.

We stayed in touch with OCWEN re status of file and if an update was needed

would contact client to obtain said update.

On or about July 16th upon placing our weekly call to OCWEN we

were informed the loan modification request was denied. The reason being there

can be no HAMP because this is a VA loan and the income is still insufficient.

It was becoming apparent the investor didn't want to do a modification.

Nevertheless we demanded an alternative to foreclosure as there was a sales

date scheduled for July 21, 2014. We also requested that the sales date be

postponed. They granted a postponement, but only until August 1st, 2014. We

continued to attempt to escalate the file but on about July 28, 2014 that was

denied based on fact loan was a VA loan and the GI income was no longer being

received. However, OCWEN did offer alternatives to foreclosure 1. Reinstatement

of account; 2. Short sell.

We immediately informed the wife who informed us she had already

met with her Realtor and someone they knew was going to purchase the house

through their realtor. We stressed to her if she was truly initiating the short

sale process, she needed to move quickly as the sales date was scheduled for

August 1, 2014 @ 2:00 PM. Client stated she understood and that is why she was

meeting with the realtor to proceed w/ the short sale. We stressed to the wife

to stress to the Realtor to submit a Short Sale Package now. Her Realtor should

request the sales date be postponed. The client's wife stated she knew what

needed to take place.

On July 29th we contacted OCWEN to inform them client was

proceeding with Short Sale and they should postpone the sale to allow time for

the review of the Short Sale. OCWEN related that in order to have the sales

date postponed the listing of the property and the offer had to be submitted to

them ASAP, but no guarantees were made to postpone the sales date. We informed

the client's wife that the listing agreement and the offer had to be sent to

OCWEN immediately. She should inform her Realtor, if he was not already aware,

of this situation. Wife again stated she was aware of this situation, but was

working more than usual, making it difficult to meet with her Realtor. Whether

the wife (or Realtor) really had a client who would purchase the house for some

figure the bank would accept is not known. What is known is that we stressed to

the client's wife (she was involved in the short sale) that the foreclosure

sales date was still active for August 1, 2014 @ 2:00 PM.

On August 1, 2014 we contacted OCWEN to check the status of having

the sales date postponed and were informed the Sales date was still active and

were proceeding at 2:00 PM. We attempted to contact client with no answer. We

left numerous voice mail messages informing client of the sales date taking

place. Client contacted us on August 1, 2014 at 1:58 pm to check the status and

was informed the sales date was active and numerous attempts to contact client

were made. We were then informed the client's husband was unaware the sale date

was active. Husband was informed that his wife was very well aware of the sale

date and the fact the file was being denied for a modification, which is why

they were short selling the home. Client stated he was unaware of what was

taking place and would be speaking with his wife about the entire situation.

August 1, 2014 was the last communication Main Law PC had with the

clients.

On or about September 3, 2014 we attempted to contact the clients

to inquire whether the correspondence being received on their behalf was to be

mailed to the property or forwarded to another address. We were unable to reach

the clients and a message was left in their voicemail. The call we made was not

returned and therefore withdraw of representation was made on November 25th,

2014.

We have talked with the client and resolved our differences.

Consumer

Response:

I have ed 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 ed appear below.

[We are in process of resolving this issue & will update once the situation has been COMPLETED RESOLVED, which is through complete refund for services not rendered]

Regards,

Review: Received mailer. Two items in list fit me. 1)High Interest rate 6.75%, 2) Negative ewuity. I called the number and spoke to [redacted]. Explained that I didn't have a financial hardship and just wanted to lower my interest rate because of negative equity. [redacted] asked questions that I answered about gross income and outstanding credit debt. [redacted] stated that I qualified for the program and the worst case would be no lower mortgage amount but would lower my interest to 4%. [redacted] then sent me the agreement to sign. Which I signed bassed on the above. Paid to Main Law 3/24/14 $1,900.00, 4/29/14 $1,900.00 Total $3,800.00. Received phone call and email from Jorge Velasquez stating that Wells Fargo came to a decision regarding the review of your loan modification. Unfortunately, the review was denied for any and all programs Wells Fargo offers due to the following reasons: 1) No imminent default or hardship noted, 2) Payment is current at this time showing affordability, 3) Current monthly household income is deemed affordable, 4) Current payment is less that 31% of current monthly household income, 5)Client has $2700 of monthly surplus. I was not told that they were going for a hardship modification. 7/24/14, spoke to [redacted], Mr. [redacted] stated that I was a candidate for the HARP program, and asked if I wanted them to pursue that avenue. This was in response to mm request for a refund of $3,800.00 on J7/2/14.Desired Settlement: I would like to have the $3,800.00 that I paid on a promise that they could get me at least a 4% loan refunded. Emails for the refund have been ignored.

Business

Response:

Complaint Number: [redacted]Please be advised we have responded to the Revdex.com complaint number: [redacted]. This matter hasbeen resolved with consumer directly.If anything else should be needed, please, do not hesitate to call us. We thank you for your timeand help and this matter.Thank you