Product: Mortgage

1 ) Pursuant to CPLR 3408 WELLS FARGO did NOT Negotiate a Mortgage Modification in Good Faith. 
2 ) Pursuant to CPLR 3408 WELLS FARGO improperly Denied me a Mortgage Modification when as Per Wells Fargos own NPV Document shows I qualify at 30 % and within HAMP Guidelines. ( NPV Document attached ) 3 ) WELLS FARGO failed to follow Investors Service Agreement that DOES ALLOW MORTGAGE MODIFICATIONS. ( I have the PSA and attached relevant parts ) 4 ) WELLS FARGO Failed to provide a Modification in my XX/XX/XXXX Application under CPLR 3408 when in Wells Fargos NPV Document Proves Im within HAMP Guidelines at 30 % but Wells Fargo incorrectly denied me and stated it was over 42 %. In my complaint with CFPB on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX and in phone conversations with Wells Fargo Representatives on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX I asked for a documentation Wells Fargo used in coming up with my income was over 42 %, but to date Wells Fargo has ignored every request in violation of CPLR 3408 ( e ). 
XXXX ) WELLS FARGO in Violation of CPLR 3408 ( e ) IF A LENDER HAS DENIED THE APPLICATION, THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED ( REQUIRED ) : 1 ). DENIAL LETTER GIVING THE DATA INPUT FIELDS AND VALUES USED IN THE EVALUATION.

6 ) WELLS FARGO in Violation of CFR 1024.41 ( d ) ( 2 ) - Loss Mitigation Procedures- ( d ) Denial of loan modification options : 2 ) NET PRESENT VALUE CALCULATIION ( NPV ). If a trial or permanent loan modification is denied because of a net present value calculation, THE SPECIFIC REASONS IN THE NOTICE PROVIDED TO THE BORROWER MUST INCLUDE THE INPUTS USED IN THE NET PRESENT VALUE ( NPV ) CALCULATUION. In Wells Fargos Denial of my XX/XX/XXXX Modification Application just stated PROPOSED MODIFICATION MONTHLY PAYMENT AMOUNT WOULD BE MORE THAN 42 % OF GROSS MONTHLY INCOME. My Attorney responded with the NPV inputs telling Wells Fargo their calculations were inaccurate and to recalculate but they denied it again with the same answer. In the denial, WELLS FARGO never included THE INPUTS USED IN THE NET PRESENT VALUE ( NPV ) CALCULATUION which they MUST include and in Violation of CFR 1024.41 ( d ) ( 2 ).

7 ) WELLS FARGO In Violation of HAMP Section 6.5 If as Wells Fargo Claims, investor does not participate in program why did Wells Fargo perform an NPV? HAMP Section 6.5 states - If the SERVICER IS SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS THAT MAKE IT UNFEASIBLE TO COMPLETE THE MODIFICATION waterfall steps, the SERVICER SHOULD IDENTIFY THIS PRIOR ( PRIOR ) TO PREFORMING THE NPV EVALUATION and NOT PREFORM AN NPV EVALUATION.

8 ) WELLS FARGO in Violation of HAMP Section 6.5 by having me Apply for a HAMP Modification and Wells Fargo preforming the NPV evaluation if the Investor has restrictions. WELLS FARGO is also In Violation of APPELLATE COURT Ruling APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, NEW YORK U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n v. Smith , 123 AD3d 914 Dec. 17, XXXX. If the servicer is subject to restrictions that make it unfeasible to complete the modification waterfall steps, the servicer should identify this PRIOR TO PERFORMING THE NPV EVAUATION and NOT PERFORM an NPV evaluation.

9 ) WELLS FARGO in Violation of CFR 1024.41 ( d ) ( 1 ) - Loss Mitigation Procedures- ( d ) Denial of loan modification options : 1 ) Investor requirements. If a trial or permanent LOAN MODIFICATION OPTION IS DENIED BECAUSE OF A REQUIREMENT OF AN OWNER OR ASSIGNEE of a mortgage loan, THE SPECIFIC REASON ( SPECIFIC REASON ) IN THE NOTICE PROVIDED TO THE BORROWER MUST ( MUST ) IDENTIFY the owner or assignee of the mortgage loan and THE REQUIREMENT THAT IS THE BASIS OF THE DENIAL. A STATEMENT THAT THE DENIAL OF A LOAN MODIFICATION OPTION IS BASED ON AN INVESTORS REQUIREMENT WITHOUT ( WITHOUT ) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SPECIFFICALLY IDENTIFYING ( SPECIFFICALLY IDENTIFYING ) THE RELEVANT INVESTOR AND THE SPECIFIC APPLICATION REQUIREMENT IS INSUFFICIENT. In my 2nd Modification Application XX/XX/XXXX Wells Fargo Denied me based on investor does not participate in program WITHOUT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. Wells Fargo Never provided THE SPECIFIC REASON. Wells Fargo Notice never SPECIFFICALLY IDENTIFYING THE RELEVANT INVESTOR. Wells Fargo failed to provide THE REQUIREMENT THAT IS THE BASIS OF THE DENIAL. 

10 ) WELLS FARGO In Violation of HAMP Section - 1.3 Investor Solicitation Wells Fargo had the Duty to review all servicing agreements to determine investor participation in HAMP. Since Wells Fargo is claiming after my 2nd modification application the investor does not participate in program they are in Violation of HAMP 1.3.

11 ) WELLS FARGO In Violation of HAMP Section - 1.3 Investor Solicitation - WELLS FARGO FAILED to contact the investor in writing asking for a Waiver.

12 ) WELLS FARGO In Violation of HAMP Section - 1.3 in As per APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, NEW YORK. CITIMORTGAGE INC v. LOFRIA. Since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it followed HAMP regulations and guidelines, i.e., that it MADE ANY EFFORT AT ALL TO SEEK A WAIVER FROM THE as to the restriction which made it unfeasible to complete the modification waterfall steps, it FAILED to establish that it NEGOIATED IN GOOD FAITH pursuant to CPLR 3408 ( f ). Also in the COURT OF APPEALS ( listed later in complaint ), WELLS FARGO FAILING TO PROVIDE A WAIVER OF THE INVESTOR RESTRICTIONS DEMOSTRATES A FAILURE TO FOLLOW HAMP GUIDELINES WHICH CONSTITUTE A FAILURE TO NEGOIATE IN GOOD FAITH PRUSUANT TO CPLR 3408 ( f ).

13 ) WELLS FARGO In violation of HAMP Section 7.0 Net Present Value ( NPV ) - Testing All loans that meet HAMP eligibility criteria. ( 1 ) Using the standard modification waterfall, THE RESULTS IS DEEMED POSITIVE AND THE SERVICER MUST ( MUST ) OFFER A MODIFICATION.

In WELLLS FARGOS NPV Document in my 1st Application XX/XX/XXXX it proves a POSTIVE result with me at 30 % and in HAMP Guidelines yet Wells Fargo Declined me in Violation of HAMP Section 7.0.

14 ) WELLS FARGO in Violation of CPLR 3408 ( e ). I Requested from Wells Fargo multiple times for a copy of the Investors PSA for my review to see the servicing Rules, Restrictions or Prohibitions. Wells Fargo Response XX/XX/XXXX Weve completed our review of your request for pooling and servicing agreements and a copy of the investor restrictions used in the modification review. Due to the items being confidential, privileged and/or proprietary information, were unable to provide the information requested. Per CPLR 3408 ( e ) if borrower is denied based on investors restrictions they are required to provide EVIDENCE of the PSA. Wells Fargo in Violation of CPLR 3408 ( e ) IF A LENDER HAS DENIED THE APPLICATION, THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED ( REQUIRED ) : 2 ). IF DENIAL WAS BASED ON INVESTOR RESTRICTIONS, EVIDENCE SUCH AS A POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT.

15 ) WELLS FARGO is also In Violation of XXXX COURT RULINGS by not providing the PSA as ruled in XXXX SUPREME COURT ( bellow ) the plaintiff must provided the PSA with Documentary evidence of the restrictions. Supreme Court of NYS Bank of Am., N.A . v Rausher 2014 - A plaintiff who contends that it can not agree to a loan modification or other arrangement that would allow a defendant to stay in his home because of an " investor '' prohibition or restriction must ( MUST ) provide the court with suitable documentary evidence of the restriction Clearly, plaintiff 's refusal to even consider the defendant 's loan modification has violated its obligation to negotiate in good faith pursuant to CPLR 3408 ( f ).

16 ) WELLS FARGO In Violation of the HEARSAY RULE. Wells Fargo just stating Investor does not participate in the program without any evidence or documentation, Falls under NYS and FEDERAL RULES of HEARSAY under FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE RULE 801 ( C ) HEARSAY, RULE 802, RULE 803 ( 7 ) ( 15 ) all listed at the end of this complaint.

17 ) WELLS FARGOs statement Investor does not participate in the program is False and Untrue. I obtained a copy of the investors Prospective Pooling Service Agreement ( see attached document ) and it States ( in part ) that " the Servicer ( Wells Fargo N.A. ) Under SERVICING OF MORTGAGE LOANS, Modifications, will be permitted to modify, wave or amend any term if such mortgage loan ''.

18 ) I have documentation between my attorney and Wells Fargos Mediation Specialist ( attorney ) requesting Wells Fargo to reconsider the Mortgage Denial, but that also got denied. Why would Wells Fargos own Mediation Specialist ( as Wells Fargos describes attorney handling settlement conferences ) ask them to reconsider my CPLR 3408 HAMP Modification? Because the Mediation Specialist agreed that I qualified for a Mortgage Modification! 
Wells Fargo also in Violation of XXXX Court Ruling, " Supreme Court of XXXX Bank of Am., N.A . v Rausher 2014 - A plaintiff who contends that it can not agree to a loan modification or other arrangement that would allow a defendant to stay in his home because of an " investor '' prohibition or restriction must provide the court with suitable documentary evidence of the restriction '' Clearly, plaintiff 's refusal to even consider the defendant 's loan modification has violated its obligation to negotiate in good faith pursuant to CPLR 3408 ( f ).

In 2013 Wells Fargo filled out and presented to my Attorneys and myself an NPV document for my March 2013 Application, showing my monthly income, mortgage taxes and insurance, Principal and interest payment of the Proposed HAMP modification, a revised interest rate of 2 % and a mortgage term from 360 months to 480 months. According to HAMP Section 7 loans that meet the applicable HAMP eligibility criteria in Section 1 must be evaluated using a standardized NPV test so Wells Fargo determined that I was eligible for a HAMP Modification and in so determining went to the next step and filled out the NPV document. How can Wells Fargo determine my Qualification or fill out the NPV if the Investor does not Participate? It has already been stated in Section 1.3 that Wells Fargo should had determine investor participation in HAMP and Section 6.5 and XXXX APPELLATE COURT that Wells Fargo should not fill out a NPV Document if investor does not participate. 
My Complaint against Wells Fargo which they continually fail to properly answer and/or truthy and hide behind false statements. 1 ) Most recent complaint filed XX/XX/XXXX and answered by Wells Fargo on XX/XX/XXXX. Complaint stated a ) Wells Fargo per CPLR 3408 with my XX/XX/XXXX modification, failed to modify my mortgage. When using XXXX Document Wells Fargo Provided, It proves Im at 30 % and within HAMP Guidelines, but Wells Fargo incorrectly stated I was over 42 %. I have asked Wells Fargo to show the Math they used per CPLR 3408 ( e ) in coming up that Im over 42 %. Using Wells Fargos NPV Document proves Wells Fargos Software error caused an Improper Denial. 
In My second Modification Submittal XX/XX/XXXX, I entered a correction in income where my monthly income substantially increased and would have lowered my monthly income to around 24 % Well within HAMP Guidelines. Conveniently this time Wells Fargo Stated Investor does not participate in the program. Wells Fargo also stated my Monthly income was insufficient? I have asked Wells Fargo for a copy of the Investors POOLING SERVICE AGREEMENT ( PSA ) explaining all Rules, Restrictions or Preclusions. Wells Fargo on 5/3/23 answered requested are considered confidential, privileged and/or proprietary information of Wells Fargo . FIRST, any information perinate to my mortgage must be disclosed to me. SECOND, by Wells Fargo just stating Investor does not participate in the program Falls under NYS and FEDERAL RULES of HEARSAY under FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE RULE 801 ( C ) HEARSAY, RULE 802, RULE 803 ( 7 ) ( 15 ) all listed at the end of this complaint. If Wells Fargo makes a Claim based on a Document, they must submit the Document. Also, if an Attorney request the PSA, it must be given, I am acting here Pro Se and as such I requested the document 3 times but still have been denied. THIRD, a PSA is filed with the SEC and is a public Document. I Have looked up and found the INVESTORS PSA DOCUMENT on the SEC Website ( relevant parts listed at the end of this document ). The Document - PSA ( Prospective ) filed ; XXXX XXXX XXXX Company - XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX COLLATERALIZED ASSET-BACKED BONDS, SERIES XXXX THE TRUST. Company - XXXX XXXX XXXX Indenture Trustee - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX It lists ; Subservicer - WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.. The Perinate Points of this Prospective PSA Document States TABLE OF CONTENTS - Servicing of Mortgage Loans - Page 14. MODIFICATIONS ( MODIFICATIONS ) - PAGE 15. EACH MULTIFAMILY LOAN WILL BE SUBJECT TO SPECIAL SERVICING PROVISIONS. Each Specially Serviced Multifamily Loan will be serviced in accordance with the special servicing provisions of the Servicing Agreement and the related subservicing agreement. THESE PROVISIONS INCLUDE MODIFYING ( MODIFYING ) THE TERMS OF THE LOAN IF NEEDED, selling the related mortgaged property. IF A METERIAL DEFAULT OCCURS or a payment default is reasonably foreseeable with respect to a multifamily loan, the MASTER SERVICER OR THE SPECIAL SERVICER WILL BE PERMITTED, TO MODIFY ( MODIFY ), WAIVE ( WAVE ) OR AMEND ( AMEND ) ANY TERMS ( ANY TERMS ) OF SUCH MORTGAGE LOAN, provided that SUCH MODIFICATIONS ( MODIFICATIONS ), waiver or amendment ( 1 ) is reasonably likely to produce a greater recovery with respect to such mortgage loan. WELLS FARGO HAS BEEN DECIETFUL IN THEIR ANSWER as INVESTOR ALLOWS MODIFICATIONS!!

Clearly the Wells Fargos Investors PSA lets the Servicer provide Modifications. Again, I ask Wells Fargo Why was I denied my Mortgage Modification Pursuant to CPLR 3408 when on two modification submittals I showed my income at 30 % and around 24 %. Wells Fargo Incorrectly denied me a modification AND Wells Fargo failed to Deal in GOOD FAITH per CPLR 3408.

Wells Fargo was in Violation of HAMP Guidelines by denying me a copy of Investors PSA. Defined under the HAMP Guidelines When a servicer believes a PSA prevents an NPV-positive modification, the servicer shall contact the trustee and any other parties authorized under the terms of the PSA to grant a waiver, whether individual investors, credit rating agencies, bond insurers, or otherwise, in order to obtain permission to perform a HAMP modification. THE SERVICER SHALL PROVIDE ( THE SERVICERS SHALL PROVIDE ) THE BORROWER OR THE BORROWERS REPRESENATIVE A COPY ( A COPY ) OF THE LIMITING LANGUAGE IN THE POOLING SERVICE AGREEMENT ( PSA ) ( IN THE POOLING SERVICE AGREEMENT ), A COPY OF ALL CORRESPONDENCE ( A COPY OF ALL COROSPONDENCE ) WITH THE LENDER AND INVESTORS ATTEMEPTING TO OBTAIN AUTHORITY TO PREFORM A MODIFICATION, AND ELECTRONIC ACCESS TO A COMPLETE AND UNALTERED COPY OF THE PSA.

Asking Wells Fargo for a Copy of the Mandatory Waiver they had to ask the Investor for. Failure to ask for a Waiver is a Violation of HAMP.

If Investor does not participate in the program Wells Fargo should had know that withing 90 Days of executing the SPA. Wells Fargo Became the Servicer of the Investor in XX/XX/XXXX so they should had been aware of the restrictions as of XX/XX/XXXX. But for some reason Wells Fargo had me apply for a Modification 3 times in XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, why if the Investor does not participate? Why a 3rd time after they said investor does not participate? All 3 times Wells Fargo Stated my income is not sufficient and over 42 % where Wells Fargos own NPV document shows Im 30 % or under and within the HAMP Guidelines.

HAMP Guidelines - 1.3 Investor Solicitation - Within 90 days of executing a SPA, the servicer MUST review all servicing agreements to determine investor participation in HAMP. Within 30 days of identifying an investor as a nonparticipant, or as unwilling to extend its participation in MHA to include any extension or expansion of an MHA program, or identifying a servicing agreement that limits or prohibits a servicer from offering any assistance available under MHA, including HAMP Tier 2 modifications ( i.e., prohibition against modification of non-owner occupied mortgages or limits on multiple modification of the same mortgage ), THE SERVICER MUST CONTACT THE INVESTOR IN WRITING AT LEAST ONCE, ENCOURAGING THE INVESTOR TO PERMIT MODIFICATIONS and other assistance available under the extended and expanded MHA programs.

The Servicers should know at the time of the identification of potential candidates for the HAMP programs the eligibility qualification of the candidates based upon the servicing agreement between the Servicer and the Investor, pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement ( PSA ). This is also a mandate of the Making Homes Affordable Program, Handbook for Servicers of Non-GSE Mortgages.

WELLS FARGO under HAMP had an obligation by XX/XX/XXXX to determine investor participation in HAMP and to request a WAIVER. As Per the COURT OF APPEALS ; IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON LISSON vs WELLS FARGO BANK , N.A . ; XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX. as Trustee for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Loan Trust Mod from XXXX XXXX. See, Making Home Affordable Program, Handbook for Servicers of Non-GSE Mortgages, version 4.0, ch 2, 6.5 at 99 ( XX/XX/XXXX ). FAILING TO PROVIDE A WAIVER OF THE INVESTOR RESTRICTIONS DEMOSTRATES A FAILURE TO FOLLOW HAMP GUIDELINES WHICH CONSTITUTE A FAILURE TO NEGOIATE IN GOOD FAITH PRUSUANT TO CPLR 3408 ( f ).

Wells Fargo Failed to follow State and Federal Rules. HAMP Section 1.6 Compliance with Applicable Laws Each servicer and any sub-servicer that the servicer uses will be subject to and must fully comply with all federal, state, and local laws, including statutes, regulations, ordinances, administrative rules and orders that have the effect of law, and judicial rulings.

HAMP Section 2.2 Documentation - Servicers are required to maintain appropriate documentary evidence of their MHA-related activities. Required general documentation applicable to all MHA Programs includes but is not limited to : ( 1 ) Evidence of assessment of investor willingness to participate in MHA programs and any specific outreach to investors or attempts to obtain waivers on either a portfolio or loan by loan basis, including copies of any contracts with investors relied upon in denying modifications. This should include, where applicable, documentation relating to specific parameters or limitations on participation required by investors for steps in the waterfall. ( 2 ) All documents and information related to the servicers consideration of the borrower for other loss mitigation alternatives.

HAMP Section 6.5 Prohibitions on Modification Waterfall Steps- If the SERVICER IS SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS THAT MAKE IT UNFEASIBLE TO COMPLETE THE MODIFICATION waterfall steps, the SERVICER SHOULD IDENTIFY THIS PRIOR ( PRIOR ) TO PREFORMING THE NPV EVALUATION and NOT PREFORM AN NPV EVALUATION. Servicers must maintain evidence in the loan file documenting the nature of any deviation from taking any sequential modification step in the modification waterfall and the fact that the applicable servicing agreement, investor guideline or law restricted or prohibited fully performing the modification waterfall step. The documentation must show that the servicer made a reasonable effort to seek a waiver from the investor and whether that waiver was approved or denied.

In Violation of Section 6.5 Prohibitions on Modification, Wells Fargo did provide to me a NPV when its Investor had restrictions. I have asked Wells Fargo on XX/XX/XXXX for a copy of the waiver Wells Fargo asked the Investor for but Wells Fargo has failed to provide one.

HAMP Section 7 Net Present Value ( NPV ) Testing - All loans that meet the applicable HAMP eligibility criteria in Section 1 must be evaluated using a standardized NPV test that compares the NPV result for a modification to the NPV result for no modification.

FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE RULE 801 ( C ) HEARSAY - Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at trial offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

Rule 802 - Bars the admission of hearsay evidence unless an exception applies.

Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay - The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule ; 7 ) Absence of a Record of a Regularly Conducted Activity. Evidence that a matter is not included in a record described in paragraph ( 6 ) if : ( C ) the opponent does not show that the possible source of the information or other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

( 15 ) Statements in Documents That Affect an Interest in Property. A statement contained in a document that purports to establish or affect an interest in property if the matter stated was relevant to the documents purpose unless later dealings with the property are inconsistent with the truth of the statement or the purport of the document.

IN SUMATION WELLS FARGO ( 1 ) WELLS FARGO Falsely Denying Me a Modification stating investor does not Participate in program. In this Complaint I Provided the Investors PSA prospective PROVING the INVESTOR DOES ALLOW MODIFICAATIONS!!

( 2 ) WELLS FARGO Failed to provided me the Investors PSA per HAMP, I requested numerous times in my CFPB Complaints ( QWR ). Wells Fargo denied it saying it is confidential, privileged and/or proprietary information of Wells Fargo . By myself searching for the Public Document filed at the SEC, it shows why WELLS FARGO DENIED MY REQUEST. Wells Fargo denied my request against the Servicing Agreement Wells Fargo had with the Investor. INVESTORS PROSPECTIVE PSA STATES the MASTER SERVICER OR THE SPECIAL SERVICER WILL BE PERMITTED, TO MODIFY WAIVE OR AMEND ( AMEND ) ANY TERMS ( ANY TERMS ) OF SUCH MORTGAGE LOAN, provided that SUCH MODIFICATIONS, waiver or amendment ( 1 ) is reasonably likely to produce a greater recovery with respect to such mortgage loan. WELLS FARGO HAS BEEN DECIETFUL IN THEIR ANSWER as INVESTOR ALLOWS MODIFICATIONS!!

( 3 ) In 1st Modification Application as per NPV Document my monthly income was at 30 % but Wells Fargo incorrectly denied me stating it was at 42 %. Wells Fargo In Violation of CPLR 3408, HAMP Guidelines, CPLR 3408 ( e ), CFR 1024.41 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( 2 ) ( 4 ) WELLS FARGO in Violation of HAMP Section 7.0 Net Present Value ( NPV ) - ( 1 ) Using the standard modification waterfall, THE RESULTS IS DEEMED POSITIVE AND THE SERVICER MUST ( MUST ) OFFER A MODIFICATION. In Wells Fargos own NPV Document shows Im at 30 % and within HAMP Guidelines making my XX/XX/XXXX Modification Application POSITIVE. 
( XXXX ) WELLS FARGO in Violation of HAMP 6.5 With knowing the Investors Restrictions, Wells Fargo should not had run an NPV Evaluation.

( 6 ) WELLS FARGO in Violation of the Appellate Court Rulings If the servicer is subject to restrictions that make it unfeasible to complete the modification waterfall steps, the servicer should identify this PRIOR TO PERFORMING THE NPV EVAUATION and NOT PERFORM an NPV evaluation.

( 7 ) In 2ND Modification Application was now denied on investor does not participate in program. Wells Fargo in Violation of CPLR 3408 did not Negotiate in Good Faith. Wells Fargo should had known the Investors restrictions before ever having me start a Useless Modification Applications lasting over 1 year.

( 8 ) WELLS FARGO in Violation of the FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE RULE 801 ( C ) HEARSAY, RULE 802, RULE 803 ( 7 ) ( 15 ). Making a broad Statement investor does not participate in program when Wells Fargo has the documents to back it up but fails to provide them, the statement falls under Hearsay.

( 9 ) WELLS FARGO In Violation of HAMP Section - 1.3 Investor Solicitation Wells Fargo had the Duty to review all servicing agreements to determine investor participation in HAMP. Since Wells Fargo is claiming after my 2nd modification application the investor does not participate in program they are in Violation of HAMP 1.3.

( 10 ) WELLS FARGO In Violation of HAMP Section - 1.3 Investor Solicitation - WELLS FARGO FAILED to contact the investor in writing asking for a Waiver.

( 11 ) WELLS FARGO In Violation of APPELLATE RULING APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, NEW YORK. CITIMORTGAGE INC v. LOFRIA failed to demonstrate that it followed HAMP regulations and guidelines, i.e., that it MADE ANY EFFORT AT ALL TO SEEK A WAIVER ( 12 ) WELLS FARGO In Violation of APPEALS Court Ruling in THE COURT OF APPEALS LISSON vs WELLS FARGO BANK N.A. ; XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX. as Trustee for XXXX XXXX FAILING TO PROVIDE A WAIVER OF THE INVESTOR RESTRICTIONS DEMOSTRATES A FAILURE TO FOLLOW HAMP GUIDELINES WHICH CONSTITUTE A FAILURE TO NEGOIATE IN GOOD FAITH PRUSUANT TO CPLR 3408 ( f ). ( 13 ) WELLS FARGO in Violation of CPLR 3408 ( e ) IF A LENDER HAS DENIED THE APPLICATION, THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED ( REQUIRED ) : 1 ). DENIAL LETTER GIVING THE DATA INPUT FIELDS AND VALUES USED IN THE EVALUATION. I Requested from Wells Fargo multiple times for a copy of the Investors PSA for my review to see the servicing Rules, Restrictions or Prohibitions. Wells Fargo Response 5/3/23 Weve completed our review of your request for pooling and servicing agreements and a copy of the investor restrictions used in the modification review. Due to the items being confidential, privileged and/or proprietary information, were unable to provide the information requested. Per CPLR 3408 ( e ) if borrower is denied based on investors restrictions they are required to provide EVIDENCE of the PSA. Wells Fargo in Violation of CPLR 3408 ( e ) IF A LENDER HAS DENIED THE APPLICATION, THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED ( REQUIRED ) : 2 ). IF DENIAL WAS BASED ON INVESTOR RESTRICTIONS, EVIDENCE SUCH AS A POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT. This is another Qualified Written Request ( QWR ) pursuant to the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act ( section 2605 ( e ) ). 1 ) Specifically requesting from Wells Fargo, a copy of the Investors PSA showing the Guidelines, Rules and Restrictions the Mortgage Servicer must follow. 2 ) Again, Im asking Wells Fargo for the documents that show how they came up with your modified payment amount would be more than 42 % of your monthly income. I have the Wells Fargo NPV proving using Wells Fargos numbers that I qualify at 30 % of HAMP. 3 ) Im asking Wells Fargo for the documents that show the written request ( per Section 1.3 ) of the investor for a Waiver of the restrictions. 4 ) Specifically requesting from Wells Fargo, per HAMP Guidelines Section 6.5 Im requesting a copy of the request that Wells Fargo MUST SEND TO INVESTOR SEEKING A WAIVER REQUEST and whether or not that Waiver was approved or not.