Richey Real Estate Law Firm

[redacted] 
Revdex.com of Orange County
4747 Viewridge Ave. Ste. 200
San Diego, CA 92123
[email protected] 
RE: [redacted]
Dear Ms*...

[redacted],
This letter will address the issues raised in the complaint filed by Mr. & Mrs. [redacted] against my law firm. 
Under no circumstances are any of my clients advised to stop making their mortgage payments.  I represent many clients in need of mortgage assistance.  Some of them are delinquent, some are in default status/foreclosure and others are current. The standard of review for a loan modification or other workout solution is whether or not the client is experiencing a financial hardship.  It is not the status of the mortgage. When we learned the clients were not making their payments, but could afford to do so despite their hardship, we advised them to immediately resume their payments.  The clients’ complaint confirms that [redacted] told them to start making their payments.  [redacted], who is my assistant, also provided a brief explanation to them regarding the foreclosure process.  When a homeowner become three months behind in their payments then the lender can commence foreclosure proceedings.  If the homeowner is one or two months behind on their mortgage, they are delinquent but not necessarily in default.  [redacted]’s statement to the [redacted]s’ was for informational purposes during the discussion regarding client’s non-payment and was made to ensure the clients understand the process so as to avoid foreclosure. The assertion that [redacted] told them they “should have been advised to stop payments for 3 months to show hardship” contradicts the standard. Such as statement is further not accurate since being three months behind actually triggers the foreclosure process.  My office has a very strict policy on this issue.  To made such a suggestion is not only unethical but it undermines the contractual responsibility the clients owe to their lender. 
Mr. & Mrs. [redacted] were referred to my office by a referral company, SC Law Group.  On October 10, 2012 the [redacted]’s signed a retainer agreement seeking mortgage assistance with their home loan.  The file was originally assigned to [redacted] of RB Paralegal Services who I hired to assist me with the files. She was required to conduct the initial review to determine if the clients prequalified for a workout solution and also, to gather the documents for my review and analysis.  In April 2013, I terminated my relationship with Ms. [redacted] for several reasons including the fact that I did not feel she (or her employee, [redacted]) was communicating with the clients on a regular basis or following through with certain tasks to my satisfaction.  
All my clients are advised that updated financial information/documents will be requested every thirty days as required by the lender.  Wells Fargo and lenders in general require updated financial information and documents in order to ensure any modification is based upon the homeowners’ current income and expenses.  This is true regardless if the modification application is accepted under HAMP, an in-house modification or any other workout program.  It is also typical for a lender to request supplemental information as the file proceeds through the lender’s review process. A utility bill is requested every 60 to 90 days for verification of residency for example.  The modification process can be lengthy depending upon many factors including the particular lender who services the loan.  Because the process relies heavily upon the production of documents, the clients are advised that their ongoing cooperation is critical for success.
Shortly after the services provided by Ms. [redacted] were terminated, I contacted the clients directly to discuss the status of their loan modification application.  I addressed the clients’ concerns and the workout process and, I assured them the file had been submitted to the lender and that we were awaiting a response- subject to any further document requests from the lender.  During this conversation the clients also informed me that a tax lien had recently been placed on the property and that a Sheriff had come to their home because they had not paid their property taxes. I advised the clients to contact the county tax assessor’s office directly to work out a repayment plan and that they should have paid said taxes if they had the means to do so. As mentioned above, the status of mortgage is not the standard for a loan modification.  In my experience the only difference between a client in default, a client who is delinquent and a client who is current with regards to seeking mortgage assistance is the priority in which the client receives the lender’s attention, and especially in the case of Wells Fargo.  
In June 2013, Wells Fargo offered the clients a temporary solution to their mortgage distress. The offer was made verbally with official document to follow once the three-month trial period ended.  The offer was a 12-month modification to alleviate the clients’ current hardship. The terms of the modification included a reduction in payment from $1,194.75 to $1,118.32.  It also adjusted the interest rate from 6.370% to 5.50% during the modification period. The clients’ loan would also become current and all unpaid interest that accrued to the date of the modification was waived. While this offer was not ideal, it did bring the loan current and it gave the clients some temporary relief. Attached is a copy of the modification agreement.  Also attached is another version of the same agreement but the second version shows a payment of $1,194.75, which represents the original payment.  Both versions are dated September 17, 2013.  Apparently, the lender inadvertently attached the wrong version to the correct version. 
Due to the temporary nature of the modification, I offered to resubmit the loan application after 12 months at no cost.  I also agreed to submit a modification application for the client’s second lien.
After a successful three--month trial period, the lender sends the modification agreement to the homeowners for signature. The clients’ complaint seems to suggest that the law firm was required to execute the modification papers on behalf of the client.  However, all modification agreements are to be executed by the homeowners since it adjusts the term of the original Note.  Although the clients were informed of the modification process and the terms, I sent them an email in August 2013 informing them the lender would be sending the modification paperwork to them directly. The clients were instructed to continue making their modification payments so that any delay in the paperwork would not affect the modification. 
On September 14, 2013 we spoke with the lender and were advised that the clients’ second lien modification application was denied. A denial is certainly discouraging but it can also provide valuable information needed for a successful re-submission. Unless the lender denies the modification due to lack of investor participation, a denial can actually assist in achieving a subsequent approval.  
Thereafter, my office called the lender for a status update and learned the agreement was sent to the clients on September 17, 2013.  We also requested that the lender provide us with a copy of the modification for our files. The modification agreement clearly lists the clients’ name and address as the intended recipient.  At not time did the client contact me to inform me that they did not receive the paperwork.  
In December 2013, I finalized my revision of the financial analysis for the client’s second lien.   I was in the process of finalizing the modification package for resubmission when I received the complaint. 
Because the clients did not sign and return the modification agreement to the lender, the modification did not take effect and the payments reverted to the original amount of $1,194.75.  According to the complaint, the deficiency was then reported on their credit.  It seems odd to me that the lender did not sent the clients a notice of any kind indicting they were behind in their payments.  Our office did not receive any notices in this regard.  Had I known of this error, I would have gladly cleared this up with the lender. 
Regarding the cease and desist, Wells Fargo is notorious for automatically placing a cease and desist on the files once they are in receipt the letter of authorization advising them the homeowner has retained an attorney.  Our office does not typically initiate a cease and desist unless specifically requested by the client and under certain conditions.  In any event, the cease and desist serves only to prevent the lender from making harassing phone calls to the homeowners’ residence.  It generally does not stop routine mortgage information being sent to the client such as statements and notices. Nor will it stop the foreclosure process. 
I understand that the clients are currently seeking assistance from the lender for a modification. Although I do not believe the lender will put forth the effort to ensure success, I do hope the [redacted]s are successful.  If they are not successful, my offer to re-submit the modification packages for the first and second liens stands.    
Finally, I am also willing to assist the [redacted]s in resolving the current credit issue resulting from the failure to accept/receive the modification agreement. I have attempted to contact the [redacted]s regarding this complaint so that I may resolve these issues. 
Please contact me at (949) 200-7065 should you have any other questions or concerns. 
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Review: Responded to a mailing from SC Law Group, for mortgage help approx... late Sept 2012.Our contact person at SC Law Group, was [redacted]ander; whom we spoke with several times. [redacted] is the person who we sent all requested documents, as well as several money orders totaling the amount of $3400.00; for the retainer fee for Richeys Real Estate Law Firm.We were sent a financial Income & Expense Worksheet advising us that we qualified for help with our mortgage, which was the HAM 40.Our case was then turned over to Richeys Real Estate Law Firm. Our contact person there was [redacted] Solis, from approx. Oct 2012 to approx.. April 2013. She was the person who we faxed all needed documents to; and was told by her and [redacted] to cease making payments for the first mortgage.The $3400.00, retainer that was paid came from the money that would have gone toward the mortgage.Every 30 days we were requested to send updated pay stubs and bank statements.Spoke with [redacted], April 2013, and was told she was having a hard time with Wells Fargo cooperating, and that our file was being given to another processor; who dealt with Wells Fargo directly. His name was [redacted], continued the process of having us fax all new paperwork, this went on for approx... the next 60 days.Between the months of April and May of 2013, I called Richeys office and actually got [redacted] Richey, on the phone. We spoke for about 45 minutes. I stressed to her our concerns on how long this process was taking, and that we had not paid our mortgage since October 2013; and this was something we had never done before. Ms. Richey stated to me that she had gotten rid of [redacted] and [redacted] and several other employees; because they werent doing their work in a timely fashion or not doing it at all.During this whole process I constantly had a hard time contacting Richeys office. They had an answering service taking calls. The answering service would say, Someone will call you back within 48 hrs. Most times this never happened.During the month of March 2013, I spoke with [redacted] about our property taxes, because we were advised not to pay them because; the bank didnt want our home so they would make sure they got paid. Well this was not true, because one day my husband called me at work to say the Sheriff was at our door, serving us with notice. We explained we were in the middle of a modification and was told not to pay by the lawyers office. This was in correct information; however the tax and Sheriffs office allowed us to make payments.June 2013, I called Richeys office and we were given another processor named [redacted]. Again we had to fax new information also it was [redacted], who told us to start making our payment again. She stated we should have only been advised to stop payment for 3 months just to show hardship. [redacted] apologized and started working with Wells Fargo.June 2013 we received a temporary modification, in which we had to pay $1118.00, for (3) months, July, August and September; if these payments were made on time we were accepted and the following year we would get a permanent modification.I contacted [redacted] and advised her of this, as well as the new amount we were to pay. [redacted] then stated that they would start working on the second mortgage.December 2013, we had not heard from Richeys Law Firm, I called and sent an email, no response. Approx. 2 weeks later on 1/14/14 we received a letter, requesting information to start working on the second mortgage. We faxed updated paystubs and bank statements along with all other information requested of us on 1/20/14.January 17, 2014 I went to Wells Fargo and set up an appointment with the mortgage person for 1/24/14.On 1/24/14, at 1:30pm we sat down the mortgage person and went over our mortgage information. While in the office we contacted the Mortgage Preservation Specialist, who worked on our modification, named [redacted]. It wasnt until this we spoke with her that we found out Wells Fargo sent the completion letter for the modification to Richeys Law firm back on 9/27/13. The letter was never signed and returned, Wells Fargo tried to contact Richeys Law office for 60 days to no avail; however Wells Fargo did receive a letter requesting they Cease and Desist, on 8/13/13. Requesting they not contact us. Meanwhile we were paying the new modified amount of $1118.00, not knowing that because Richey Law Firm didnt return the signed letter the modification didnt go through. Once again making us late on our mortgage payment; which went back to $1194.00, because of them?Because of all the inadequate and false information, as well as time and unnecessary running around we have been asked to do. Not to mention we now have 8 months worth of late history on our credit report.Desired Settlement: Damages:$3400.00 retainer fee$9552.00 11-12 to 5-13 mortgage payment$608.00 difference between the $1194.00 and $ 1118.00From 6-13 to 1-14.

Business

Response:

[redacted]

Revdex.com of Orange County

4747 Viewridge Ave. Ste. 200

San Diego, CA 92123

[email protected]

RE: [redacted]

Dear Ms[redacted],

This letter will address the issues raised in the complaint filed by Mr. & Mrs. [redacted] against my law firm.

Under no circumstances are any of my clients advised to stop making their mortgage payments. I represent many clients in need of mortgage assistance. Some of them are delinquent, some are in default status/foreclosure and others are current. The standard of review for a loan modification or other workout solution is whether or not the client is experiencing a financial hardship. It is not the status of the mortgage. When we learned the clients were not making their payments, but could afford to do so despite their hardship, we advised them to immediately resume their payments. The clients’ complaint confirms that [redacted] told them to start making their payments. [redacted], who is my assistant, also provided a brief explanation to them regarding the foreclosure process. When a homeowner become three months behind in their payments then the lender can commence foreclosure proceedings. If the homeowner is one or two months behind on their mortgage, they are delinquent but not necessarily in default. [redacted]’s statement to the [redacted]s’ was for informational purposes during the discussion regarding client’s non-payment and was made to ensure the clients understand the process so as to avoid foreclosure. The assertion that [redacted] told them they “should have been advised to stop payments for 3 months to show hardship” contradicts the standard. Such as statement is further not accurate since being three months behind actually triggers the foreclosure process. My office has a very strict policy on this issue. To made such a suggestion is not only unethical but it undermines the contractual responsibility the clients owe to their lender.

Mr. & Mrs. [redacted] were referred to my office by a referral company, SC Law Group. On October 10, 2012 the [redacted]’s signed a retainer agreement seeking mortgage assistance with their home loan. The file was originally assigned to [redacted] of RB Paralegal Services who I hired to assist me with the files. She was required to conduct the initial review to determine if the clients prequalified for a workout solution and also, to gather the documents for my review and analysis. In April 2013, I terminated my relationship with Ms. [redacted] for several reasons including the fact that I did not feel she (or her employee, [redacted]) was communicating with the clients on a regular basis or following through with certain tasks to my satisfaction.

All my clients are advised that updated financial information/documents will be requested every thirty days as required by the lender. Wells Fargo and lenders in general require updated financial information and documents in order to ensure any modification is based upon the homeowners’ current income and expenses. This is true regardless if the modification application is accepted under HAMP, an in-house modification or any other workout program. It is also typical for a lender to request supplemental information as the file proceeds through the lender’s review process. A utility bill is requested every 60 to 90 days for verification of residency for example. The modification process can be lengthy depending upon many factors including the particular lender who services the loan. Because the process relies heavily upon the production of documents, the clients are advised that their ongoing cooperation is critical for success.

Shortly after the services provided by Ms. [redacted] were terminated, I contacted the clients directly to discuss the status of their loan modification application. I addressed the clients’ concerns and the workout process and, I assured them the file had been submitted to the lender and that we were awaiting a response- subject to any further document requests from the lender. During this conversation the clients also informed me that a tax lien had recently been placed on the property and that a Sheriff had come to their home because they had not paid their property taxes. I advised the clients to contact the county tax assessor’s office directly to work out a repayment plan and that they should have paid said taxes if they had the means to do so. As mentioned above, the status of mortgage is not the standard for a loan modification. In my experience the only difference between a client in default, a client who is delinquent and a client who is current with regards to seeking mortgage assistance is the priority in which the client receives the lender’s attention, and especially in the case of Wells Fargo.

In June 2013, Wells Fargo offered the clients a temporary solution to their mortgage distress. The offer was made verbally with official document to follow once the three-month trial period ended. The offer was a 12-month modification to alleviate the clients’ current hardship. The terms of the modification included a reduction in payment from $1,194.75 to $1,118.32. It also adjusted the interest rate from 6.370% to 5.50% during the modification period. The clients’ loan would also become current and all unpaid interest that accrued to the date of the modification was waived. While this offer was not ideal, it did bring the loan current and it gave the clients some temporary relief. Attached is a copy of the modification agreement. Also attached is another version of the same agreement but the second version shows a payment of $1,194.75, which represents the original payment. Both versions are dated September 17, 2013. Apparently, the lender inadvertently attached the wrong version to the correct version.

Due to the temporary nature of the modification, I offered to resubmit the loan application after 12 months at no cost. I also agreed to submit a modification application for the client’s second lien.

After a successful three--month trial period, the lender sends the modification agreement to the homeowners for signature. The clients’ complaint seems to suggest that the law firm was required to execute the modification papers on behalf of the client. However, all modification agreements are to be executed by the homeowners since it adjusts the term of the original Note. Although the clients were informed of the modification process and the terms, I sent them an email in August 2013 informing them the lender would be sending the modification paperwork to them directly. The clients were instructed to continue making their modification payments so that any delay in the paperwork would not affect the modification.

On September 14, 2013 we spoke with the lender and were advised that the clients’ second lien modification application was denied. A denial is certainly discouraging but it can also provide valuable information needed for a successful re-submission. Unless the lender denies the modification due to lack of investor participation, a denial can actually assist in achieving a subsequent approval.

Thereafter, my office called the lender for a status update and learned the agreement was sent to the clients on September 17, 2013. We also requested that the lender provide us with a copy of the modification for our files. The modification agreement clearly lists the clients’ name and address as the intended recipient. At not time did the client contact me to inform me that they did not receive the paperwork.

In December 2013, I finalized my revision of the financial analysis for the client’s second lien. I was in the process of finalizing the modification package for resubmission when I received the complaint.

Because the clients did not sign and return the modification agreement to the lender, the modification did not take effect and the payments reverted to the original amount of $1,194.75. According to the complaint, the deficiency was then reported on their credit. It seems odd to me that the lender did not sent the clients a notice of any kind indicting they were behind in their payments. Our office did not receive any notices in this regard. Had I known of this error, I would have gladly cleared this up with the lender.

Regarding the cease and desist, Wells Fargo is notorious for automatically placing a cease and desist on the files once they are in receipt the letter of authorization advising them the homeowner has retained an attorney. Our office does not typically initiate a cease and desist unless specifically requested by the client and under certain conditions. In any event, the cease and desist serves only to prevent the lender from making harassing phone calls to the homeowners’ residence. It generally does not stop routine mortgage information being sent to the client such as statements and notices. Nor will it stop the foreclosure process.

I understand that the clients are currently seeking assistance from the lender for a modification. Although I do not believe the lender will put forth the effort to ensure success, I do hope the [redacted]s are successful. If they are not successful, my offer to re-submit the modification packages for the first and second liens stands.

Finally, I am also willing to assist the [redacted]s in resolving the current credit issue resulting from the failure to accept/receive the modification agreement. I have attempted to contact the [redacted]s regarding this complaint so that I may resolve these issues.

Please contact me at (949) 200-7065 should you have any other questions or concerns.

Sincerely,