Product: Mortgage

In XXXX XXXX, I received an offer for mortgage recast from Ditech which would have reduced my monthly payment by about {$400.00} under the the U.S. Treasury 's Making Home Affordable MHA-HAMP. I signed and returned the documents on XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( Attachment XXXX ). Ditech did n't acknowledge my response. Then, 2 months later when I called to check what happened, a very rude supervisor started arguing about balloon payment even though my mortgage does n't have such a requirement. In a letter dated XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Ditech stated that it had received full {$5000.00} from the U.S. Treasury MHA-HAMP to recast my mortgage and reduce my mortgage payment from {$2100.00} to {$1800.00} per month effective from XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( Attachment XXXX ). Yet, the XXXX and even thereafter the XXXX statements did n't reflect this change ( Attachment XXXX ). Unfortunately, the XXXX XXXX, XXXX letter was sent when I was on a one month vacation abroad ( XXXX XXXX - XXXX XXXX ) as shown in Attachment XXXX. Due to a XXXX, I was n't able to check my mail until XXXX XXXX when I opened the recast letter, signed it and immediately put it in the mail box. For nearly two weeks Ditech did n't acknowledge my response. Then, on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, I called to check whether I should send the new recast payment of {$1800.00} or the usual amount of {$2100.00}. A staff who assisted me courteously told me she could n't do anything about the payment of XXXX but sent a request to her supervisor to change the payment of XXXX to the new reduced recast amount. She then asked me to call back on XXXX XXXX. However, I asked her if I could speak with her supervisor because I did n't want to wait till XXXX and have my payment late. Very disappointingly, the supervisor turned out to be a rude and senseless person who insisted that the XXXX XXXX letter should have been returned by XXXX XXXX even though I fervently explained to him that I was out of the country from XXXX XXXX XXXX ; and as such it was n't humanly possible for me to meet the XXXX XXXX deadline. 
What I find ironical and extremely disingenuous is that Ditech could send a letter on XXXX XXXX with the recast effective only 6 days later on XXXX XXXX. How did Ditech expect me to receive the letter, sign it, and have them review/approve the recast within only 6 days for it to effective from XXXX? Secondly, if the recast was to be effective from XXXX XXXX and I was required to sign and return the letter by XXXX XXXX, was Ditech planning to refund me or apply to the XXXX payment the overpayment of {$370.00} for the month of XXXX? Most importantly, in both the XXXX and XXXX recast letters, the primary requirement by the U.S. Treasury 's MHA-HAMP for a homeowner to qualify for the recast was that the mortgage account had to be current and not lost good standing under the HAMP for more than 90 days. As a matter of record, since my mortgage was modified by XXXX in XXXX XXXX, I have not been late a single month. So, why should a rude and obnoxious supervisor deny me my rightful benefit just because I was out of the country to receive or respond to the XXXX letter? If Ditech could n't fulfill the recast start date within 6 days as stated in its letter, then what legal or moral ground does it 's supervisor have to deny me the recast even though the U.S. Treasury under the guidelines of HAMP deposited in full MHA funds with Ditech? Honestly, I find this type of corporate greed to be not only fraudulent but also reprehensible.