Product: Mortgage

This complaint is submitted on behalf of the complainant by her advocate. 


Complainants husband XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/2017. They were both on title as joint tenants, but he was the only XXXX on their mortgage loan. Under California law, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureaus Mortgage Servicing Rules, the complainant has the right of survivorship from the XXXX joint tenant, thus becomes the successor in interest. The advocate assisted the complainant in submitting the Certificate of XXXX, an executed Affidavit XXXX of Joint Tenant, and written request of the process moving forward. 


Servicer does not appear to have policies and procedures in place to be in compliance with successors in interest regulations, if it does, it is not staffed/knowledgeable enough to properly service this product. The advocate was on hold for over 15 minutes every time she called the servicer. Shes called five times in the past three months, each time the representatives confirmed it was common to be on hold for long periods of times, presumably because they were understaffed. 


None of the representatives the advocate spoke to were familiar with California or Federal successors in interest regulations. They all requested executor of the estate documents, despite advocate explaining successor in interest regulations and referencing documentation complainant received from servicer. Servicer also provided different fax numbers to submit documents. Representatives referred to one fax number via telephone, while servicer provided two different fax numbers in writing. 


There were occasions where calls were transferred to more than two representatives because none were familiar with the process or options. On one occasion, a representative attempted to reach the appropriate department and received the message due to unforeseen circumstances, representatives are not unavailable. Servicer provided a single point of contact that was never available. Servicer then denied an assumption claiming the loan was not assumable, which was incorrect according to the note, so advocate and complainant appealed the denial. 


Servicer then advised complainant to apply for Hardest Hit Funds. Hardest Hit Funds said the complainant had to be acknowledged as a note holder by the servicer prior to being evaluated for their programs. Advocate contacted the servicer to receive something in writing acknowledging the successor in interest as a note holder. Advocate was transferred to four representatives on XX/XX/XXXX. Each time she had to re-explain the entire situation. 


The last representative advocate spoke with, XXXX XXXX, was very brief and appeared irritated by the explanation of the entire story advocate had to re-explain for the fourth time. He said their assumptions department never received the application. It didnt matter when the advocate sent documents in, or what the advocate received from the servicer, because the advocate needed to understand that theres different departments in different states. If the advocate sent it to one department, that department didnt send it to his, so theres nothing and we needed to resubmit everything to them. 


XXXX XXXX tone of voice was degrading, as if the advocate did not understand how the servicer works. Advocate expressed concerns with potential dual tracking if the successor in interest was in default. Ultimately, the servicer does not appear to be equipped to properly service the loan, which creates this big mess, and thats how injustices occur. XXXX XXXX ended the conversation with advocate needs to resubmit everything.