Product: Mortgage

Escalation Case # XXXX Background : XXXX and XXXX XXXX mortgage was assigned to Right Path from XXXX XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX lost his job due to the COVID pandemic. As a result, they applied for a Loan Modification in XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX mailed the loss mitigation application and received postal confirmation, yet Right Path said they never received the loss mitigation application. 



XXXX applied again in XX/XX/XXXX ( copy attached ) online. He was able to find a good job as a XXXX XXXX. He shared his income along with his wifes income on the loss mitigation package. A Flex Modification to my understanding does not require income verification. XXXX received a denial letter from Right Path on XX/XX/XXXX with the denial reason as they were delinquent 60 or more days delinquent within 12 months after receiving a Flex Modification ( copy of denial letter attached ). The issue- XXXX never received a Flex Modification to begin with. 



XXXX applied again XX/XX/XXXX online ( copy of loss mitigation application attached ). 

Once again, XXXX was denied for loan modification by Right Path on XX/XX/XXXX with the denial reason as the required modification terms would result in a principal and interest mortgage payment that is greater than his current principal and interest payment and therefore does not meet the requirements of the program. 



XXXX reached to me for foreclosure prevention counseling. I called and spoke with XXXX in Arizona of the Loss Mitigation Department of Right Path on XX/XX/XXXX - client had filled out loan modification but was denied was that the loan modification was the terms were to be either the same or increase the payment which caused it to be unaffordable. But then she mentioned that the payment must be lowered by at least 10 % while staying within the guidelines in ordered to be approved. It was the Flex Modification that was declined. They reviewed it and it didn't qualify based on lack of income information and they didn't know how much money was coming in if there's income to the household. I told her that XXXX was employed and he indicated in his loss mitigation application of his income. I see no reason why he should be denied as they can afford their mortgage payments. XXXX indicated can that XXXX can apply for a regular loan modification, but this requires proof of income to show that he can afford the monthly payments. This loan modification requires XXXX trial payments. She indicated that the past due would go to end of loan, maturity date changes and good chance payment would be lowered. I explained to her that a regular loan modification would increase his payments due to a higher interest rate. She shared with me that Fannie Mae reviews the loan modification forms. Can take up to 30 days to review from the day they receive the loan modification. There is currently no sheriff sale date. 



I was confused by the mortgage company XXXX XXXX that showed up on a recent soft pull on XXXX and XXXX credit report. I did a XXXX search and found that Right Path is under the umbrella of XXXX XXXX. Along with the XXXX search was a recent lawsuit on Right Path with the very same circumstances as my client ( see attached ). 



I reached out to XXXX XXXX and spoke with XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX who then provided me an escalation case number. Im not sure if Right Path even forwarded the Loss Mitigation application to XXXX XXXX for review. I am hopeful that we can resolve this without having to go to court. My clients have also filed a CFPB complaint as well. 

PLEASE CONTACT MY 3RD PARTY LISTED BELOW, THEY HAVE MY AUTHORIZATION XXXX XXXX Homeownership Specialist/HUD Certified Housing Counselor # HUDCertifiedProud Washington County Community Development Agency HUD Approved Housing Counseling Agency HCS XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX  XXXX XXXX phone XXXX fax