Consumer complaint: XXXX XXXX I was solicited by Bank of America ( BofA ) under Dept of Justice ( DOJ ) loan modification known as National Mortgage Settlement ( NMS ). I provided full info. From the onset many obstacles in processing of mod started with ( BofA ) and now with XXXX ( XXXX ). 
After filing XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, I rcvd a letter stating " the Loan to Value ( LTV ) must be greater than 100 % ''. I disputed the value under the DOJ settlement section on value related appeals, provided an independent appraisal and BofA ordered a separate appraisal. BofA appraisal completed XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. The underwriter 's notes XXXX/XXXX/XXXX state " Value {$680000.00} dispute validated ''. Underwriter, XXXX/XXXX/XXXX noted " NPV Audit results NPV positive. '' According to my Rep I would be receiving a trial or permanent modification. Over the next XXXX months the file sat in Review. XXXX/XXXX/XXXX the file was decline again. Decline letter confirmed my appeal for Value was valid ; however, alleged that loan was not in the investors ' interest. Letter stated " Because your loan received another NPV evalu ''. This is highly unusual since another NPV run would result in the same NPV Pass, and was in direct contradiction to u/w notes. Moreover, I examined pertinent input fields and discovered errors. I then filed a XXXX Appeal due to many input errors involving dates, field errors and codes. XXXX big error was the post-mod payment input of {$4800.00} ( field # XXXX ), when its closer to {$3300.00}, and is mathmatically impossible based on fields of 2.65 % @ 274 months @ {$680000.00}. This error created a higher post-mod pymt and made the ratios higher than allowable under programIn XXXX, file is sent to the Ofc of President ( OTP ), assigned to XXXX XXXX who confirm the notes from the underwriter and agreed to research errors. Same time BofA sent a letter that my loan would be Service Released to XXXX. Between XXXX XXXX - XXXX XXXX XXXX and I had conversations, he informed me that the issues brought forth in my Appeal may have affected other homeowners as well, and confirmed that my issues pertaining to default dates and min payments when using option arms were valid. In XXXX, XXXX XXXX informed me that the file was found to be NPV positive ; the file was " Cleared of all its exclusions in XXXX ''. XXXX told me he spoke to several analysts and that this involved getting to the Black box of NPV. XXXX told me that he spoke with Dept. of Production, Exclusions and Validation in his research to confirm my file was in fact NPV positive. XXXX XXXX continued to work on a solution to the Service transfer until XXXX. XXXX XXXX emailed, XXXX will honor the approval for NMS. I asked by email, " Am I to understand that XXXX will be honoring the approval and issuing Docs under the NMS program as was discussed? '' His reply " Yes, sir. That is what we have been advised ''. ( Email XXXX ). 
The file transferred to XXXX who subsequently declined the loan using inputs that were not corrected and not consistent with BofA inputs nor did XXXX u/w the file for NMS. The NPV chart included in the decline showed " NULL '' in all proposed fields and in a recent letter XXXX/XXXX/XXXX XXXX admitted that " It is important to note that XXXX is not included as a participating servicer of the NMS, or the DOJ Mortgage Settlement. '' XXXX is not XXXX of the XXXX settlement banks under DOJ. I explained the successor servicers were obligated under the NMS agreement. BofA has circumvented their obligation of complying with the NMS program by Service Releasing my file to XXXX who is not in compliance with obligations of successor servicer under exhibit A sec IV, para M ( Transfer of Servicing of Loans Pending for Permanent Loan Modification. Items XXXX and XXXX ). ( pgs XXXX of BofA Consent Judgment ) This avoidance by transferring of loans is harmful to eligible homeowners who are beneficiaries of this settlement with BofA. 

Company response: Company chooses not to provide a public response