Product: Mortgage

I am a XXXX working with the borrower in question in Oregon 's foreclosure mediation program. Within this program, the borrower has submitted two packets for which Bank of America conducted two modification reviews. Both reviews led to denials, one dated XXXX/XXXX/XXXX and one dated XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. The denial reason given each time was " We 're unable to verify your qualifying income ''. 

Both denials were issued in clear and direct violation of 12 CFR Part 1024 ( Regulation X ) Subpart C 1024.41 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( i ) ( B ) which states that as a servicer, Bank of America was obligated to " Notify the borrower in writing within 5 days ( excluding legal public holidays, Saturdays, and Sundays ) after receiving the loss mitigation application that the servicer acknowledges receipt of the loss mitigation application and that the servicer has determined that the loss mitigation application is either complete or incomplete. If a loss mitigation application is incomplete, the notice shall state the additional documents and information the borrower must submit to make the loss mitigation application complete and the applicable date pursuant to paragraph ( b ) ( 2 ) ( ii ) of this section. The notice to the borrower shall include a statement that the borrower should consider contacting servicers of any other mortgage loans secured by the same property to discuss available loss mitigation options. '' Upon receipt of the initial packet, no such notification was sent to the borrower with regard to its completeness, nor was any notification submitted to the Oregon Foreclosure Avoidance Program document portal. There is no evidence whatsoever that Bank of America took any steps in determining the completeness of the packet before issuing either of the two denial letters. The reason the issue of completeness or incompleteness is pertinent to this case is that Bank of America essentially issued a denial due to the fact that the packet was incomplete. This is a brazen violation of the above guideline, and the fact that it happened on two consecutive reviews leads me to believe that Bank of America 's loss mitigation procedures are now wholly out of line with CFPB guidelines. 

When I initially communicated to Bank of America that the XXXX/XXXX/XXXX was improper, the borrower was told to submit a new packet and was given indications for how to present verifiable income. This, to be clear, should have taken place within 5 days of packet submission and should NOT have been requested after a denial had been issued. The borrower complied with all requests, including submitting a rental agreement in her name, rental deposits to her bank account, and providing documents supporting her XXXX income. After satisfying all of the requests and submitting a new packet, she was denied for a second time without a single notification as to why the supplied income documents could not be verified. 

Through these two reviews, Bank of America has demonstrated a flagrant disregard for the modification review processes laid out by the CFPB. Worst of all, my client submitted two separate packets before the XXXX, and because they were rushed to denial due to Bank of America cutting corners, my client may no longer be eligible for HAMP. 

At this juncture, we have been told that the borrower must submit an appeal to be reviewed for HAMP. We plan to submit the appeal, but to this day we have no clear idea of what documents would be needed to verify income. Bank of America was obligated to communicate this to us within 5 days of receipt of the initial packet in XXXX XXXX, and was again obligated to do so upon receipt of the second packet in XXXX XXXX. Bank of America 's blatant disregard for my client 's right to a fair modification review should be thoroughly researched by the CFPB, as it is no doubt an ingrained practice within the Bank of America 's loss mitigation team.