Product: Mortgage

Nationstar ' most recent response dated XXXX XXXX, XXXX states " Furthermore, please be advised Nationstar can not attest to the prior servicer 's actions, including their obligation, underwriting, or lending processes. '' This claim blatantly incorrect and contradicts the XXXX DOJ Stipulated Judgement wherein it addresses the obligation of both XXXX and any successor servicer : Pages XXXX and XXXX addresses " Ordinary Transfer of Servicing from Servicer to Successor '' ( exhibit attached ) b. Any contract for the transfer or sale of servicing rights shall obligate the successor servicer to accept and continue processing pending loan modification requests 2. Transfer of Servicing to Servicer. When Servicer acquires servicing rights from another servicer, Servicer shall ensure that it will accept and continue to process pending loan modification requests from the prior servicer, and that it will honor trial and permanent loan modification agreements entered into by the prior servicer. 
NSTR 's claim is contrary to the settlement. No explanation or investigation into facts or requests presented has been conducted. Nationstar ' ( NSTR ) incorrect conclusion alleging they performed an NPV test under DOJ when clearly they have wrongly decline is based on a MHA/HAMP review, based on the provided chart in the XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. Nationstar provided an email communication between XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX of NSTR, with no underlying documents other than the letter itself. ( Attached ) XXXX XXXX XXXX requests " figures used to calculate the NPV '', and XXXX XXXX response states " this is what I found from our XXXX denial ''. Nothing was provided other than the decline itself. 
We allege that the XXXX/XXXX/XXXX denial for was underwritten for the HAMP and not DOJ program and NSTR has not provided confirmation that this was a DOJ decision instead of MHA that disallows loans with balances greater than XXXX. NSTR ' continuing references to prior letters have not addressed are non-responsive. We are requesting validation under DOJ of NPV performed by NSTR as claimed in the INTEROFFICE EMAILS : Additionally, NSTR 'response letter of XXXX/XXXX/XXXX to Ofc. of CA Att. Gen. wherein NSTR claimed my file was evaluated under the DOJ Program & resulted in a negative NPV is materially false. Another complaint letter has been sent to Ofc. of CA Attn. Gen. by, ( XXXX/XXXX/XXXX ) NSTR confirmed that " NSTR only facilitated documentation creation for DOJ program and an actual calculation of data was run by prior servicer, the previously enclosed DOJ letter of declination, XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, provides the inputs used in the review. " This further confirms NSTR ' absent investigation into facts, and apparent negligent reliance on a HAMP review in XXXX XXXX, performed by prior servicer, and only facilitated by NSTR. No comprehensive research was conducted as required under the MHA Model XXXX, Sup.Directive and DOJ as required under Successor Servicer obligations under Stipulated Judgment when a homeowner provides an Appeal on issues of NPV and erroneous inputs. This is clearly a HAMP underwriting chart that includes only one correction which was the Appraised Value of {$680000.00}, however the chart excludes offsetting provisions for current outstanding loan balance as {$860000.00} ( field # XXXX ) thereby rendering this run as ineligible since it exceeds the HAMP program limit of $ XXXX.NSTR is using disqualifying inputs without understanding their results or the methodology for properNPV evaluations or the difference between DOJ and MHA NPV modeling.The input fields pertaining to MTM and principle reduction are shown on the chart and labeled as " null '' which are inconsistent with a DOJ MTM NPV run.NSTR created a fail for an altogether different program and uses this as justification for the decline. Therefor we now request a Meeting with an Executive Level Manager to address these issues immediately.