Product: Mortgage

We have having trouble with the investor for the two mortgages on this property. Both mortgages are owned by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). I need Impac investigated as they are not complying with either the CFPB guidelines OR California 580e.

Problems with the 1st Trust Deed, serviced by XXXX. 

XXXX received this short sale on XX/XX/XXXX. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, we were told that the investor required commissions to be cut to 5 % and change relocation incentive to {$3000.00}, and to send utility bills to prove owner occupancy. We sent those items back to them on XXXX. 

On XXXX, we were then asked for the payoff from the 2nd lien holder. We had sent that to XXXX on XXXX, the rep we were speaking on XXXX was able to find it and forward to underwriting. 

XX/XX/XXXX XXXX stated that the payoff we sent was not what they wanted, and asked us to send a current full payoff demand with the UPB showing. We sent that back to them on XX/XX/XXXX. Nothing was mentioned about utility bills. 

XX/XX/XXXX XXXX rejected utility bills as they were in his wifes name. Explained this was a blended family and the borrower split his time between 2 residences, one with his relatives, and this property address where his wife and new family lives. Ombudsman escalated the issue to get it resolved. 

XXXX XXXX denied relocation stating the utility bills must be in his name in order to receive relocation, they could not be in the non-obligable spouses name. We removed relocation from settlement statement and send back to XXXX XXXX. 

XXXX no response from underwriting, ombudsman escalated. Letter sent to borrower stating they needed an additional 15 days to review file for decision. 

XX/XX/XXXX sent to investor for approval. 

XX/XX/XXXX ombudsman stated they expected response by end of business XX/XX/XXXX. 

XX/XX/XXXX ombudsman stated no response, sent inquiry to investor. 

XX/XX/XXXX still no response from investor. Ombudsman stated their inquiries to the investor have been ignored. XXXX send a 2nd letter to borrower stating they needed an additional 15 days for decision. 

I have never seen XXXX have to send TWO 15 day letters before. Underwriting on this was painfully slow, and document requests were consistently miscommunicated by XXXX front end. Once the file was in the Ombudsmans hands, communication was clear and concise, and were able to get this submitted to the investor. Now the investor is ignoring the request for decision. This is extremely concerning, as evidenced by the below interaction on the 2nd.  While it is serviced by XXXX, the investor is the same. 

The short sale file for the second Trust Deed was sent to XXXX on XXXX. 

XX/XX/XXXX XXXX needed some housekeeping changes made to the contract and XXXX, sent to XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. 
XX/XX/XXXX XXXX countered us to {$6400.00}. Corrected settlement statement and sent back XX/XX/XXXX. 
XXXX XXXX asked for buyer proof of funds, sent back on XXXX. 
XXXX XXXX marked file complete. 
XX/XX/XXXX XXXX forwarded file to investor for final approval XX/XX/XXXX no response from investor XXXX no response from investor XX/XX/XXXX Impac denied file and per letter from XXXX no short sale would be allowed and they required a full payoff. 

Impac took nearly a month to get back to XXXX, and then denied the short sale after we were issued a counter offer and that counter was met. 


Impac apparently feels they do not need to comply with state and federal law. I want them investigated and fined. It is important to note that Impac is also known as XXXX, who has been fined quite a lot for violations of the law. 


We have contacted the investor directly and they are refusing to respond. 

We will be cross-filing a complaint with the CA State Attorney General. 


I expect Impac to comply with state and federal law. I expect a reasonable response to the short sale request.