Product: Mortgage

XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX ( " XXXX '' ) submits this complaint on behalf of the borrower ( " XXXX '' ). Chase has failed to follow proper procedures for loss mitigation review in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( " RESPA '' ). 
On XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, XXXX emailed a complete loan modification application ( " the XXXX XXXX application '' ) on behalf of XXXX, to Chase 's legal counsel and directly to Chase rep., XXXX XXXX, as requested by Chase and approved by Chase 's counsel. ( Exhibit A ). Around XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, the borrower received a missing documents letter. XXXX emailed the requested documents to Chase 's counsel and XXXX XXXX on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. 
On XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, Chase 's counsel emailed XXXX a letter denying XXXX for a Chase Modification, on the grounds that Chase was " not able to create an affordable payment equal to the required percentage of the [ the borrower 's ] reported monthly gross income without changing the terms of [ the borrower 's ] mortgage beyond the modification program 's requirements. '' This same letter denied XXXX for a Chase Modification with Principal Forgiveness because Chase " could not verify [ XXXX 's ] income, employment, assets, identity, and/or property occupancy. '' ( Exhibit B ). XXXX, believing these reasons to be both improper and contradictory, appealed this on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. ( Exhibit C ). 
After XXXX submitted the appeal, XXXX XXXX of XXXX had two phone conversations with Chase rep. XXXX XXXX. On XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX informed XXXX XXXX that the denial was based on Chase 's inability to verify XXXX 's income, employment and occupancy. XXXX 's income and employment had been clearly documented in the application ; the application had also explicitly stated that XXXX does not live in the subject property, and that it is a second home in which his mother and sister live. The documents submitted with the XXXX XXXX application confirmed this. During a second telephone conversation on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX stated that the XXXX XXXX application was not reviewed because an earlier application submitted by or on behalf of the borrower incorrectly stated it was his primary residence. As noted to XXXX XXXX, XXXX did not submit this application. Despite any error in the previous application, his nonoccupancy in the property was made abundantly clear in the XXXX XXXX application. XXXX XXXX stated that the entire RMA could not be verified the file was closed. 
At a foreclosure settlement conference on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, Chase 's counsel admitted that the denial was a " streamline denial. '' She confirmed that the denial was not based on any information in the XXXX XXXX application because Chase had not actually reviewed it. The court directed that Chase review the XXXX XXXX application. On XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, Chase 's counsel emailed XXXX stating that Chase would not review the application, and instead requested an entirely new application be submitted on behalf of XXXX. 
Chase 's admitted and repeated refusal to review the complete loan modification application is a flagrant violation of RESPA 's loss mitigation rules. Pursuant to RESPA 's loss mitigation rules, upon receipt of a loss mitigation application, a servicer must determine if the application is either complete or incomplete and notify the borrower of its determination " in writing within 5 days. '' 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( i ) ( B ). If Chase discovered that additional information was required to " verify the RMA, '' Chase was required to request the information promptly. 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( iv ). If a loss mitigation application is facially complete, the servicer must " evaluate the borrower for all loss mitigation options available to to the borrower '' within 30 days. 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( c ) ( 1 ). Accordingly, Chase should have evaluated XXXX for all loss mitigation options once it became facially complete on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. However, Chase continues to refuse to review the application.