Consumer complaint received 2018-04-17
Company: Ditech Financial LLC
State: FL
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: FHA mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage

Complaint:
XX/XX/XXXX RE : Borrower Complaint Ditech Financial LLC ( Ditech ) Foreclosure Case Dear Sir/Madam : This is a consumer complaint regarding a wrongful foreclosure action against Ditech Financial. We are requesting your intervention to review the merits of our claims and the actions taken against by Ditech and previous servicers in this matter. 

The most relevant facts of the case are as follows : 1. The subject property is our home which we purchased in XX/XX/XXXX and we want to keep.

o Loan Owner : XXXX XXXX Loan o Original Servicer : XXXX XXXX  XXXX o Beginning Principal Balance {$200000.00} o Term : 30 years @ a fixed rate of o P & I : $ XXXX/Month o Escrow Account Waived 2. We failed to renew our Home Hazard Insurance coverage and provide proof of coverage to the Servicer ( XXXX ) in XX/XX/XXXX when our insurance coverage lapsed. 

3. XXXX erroneously determined the mortgage in default for non-payment by claiming the mortgage account was contractually due as XX/XX/XXXX ; however, XXXX continued to collect our mortgage payments through XX/XX/XXXX post foreclosure action. This was a mortgage default forced by the Servicer. The Lis Pendens was filed on XX/XX/XXXX. 

4. XXXX forced the mortgage default by demanding upfront payment of the Lenders Force Placed Insurance premium of {$17000.00} ( XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX ) in addition to the monthly mortgage payment. These charges were assed retroactively and covered a period that we were insured. 

5. XXXX forced mortgage default was exacerbated because the Servicer applied the force-placed insurance premium retroactively and did not provide notice of Lender Force Placed Insurance or cost until XX/XX/XXXX. This was six ( 6 ) months after the policy had taken effect and the charges had been added to the monthly mortgage amount due. A clear violation of 12 CFR 1024.37 ( c ). 

6. XXXX breached the mortgage contract by not providing notice regarding the revocation of the Escrow Waiver prior to adjusting the mortgage payment amount and initiating foreclosure action. Please refer to Section 3 of the Mortgage Contract.

7. XXXX did not credit our mortgage account or cancelled the force-placed insurance coverage cost when we had insurance coverage. Certificate of Insurance and Coverage Notices were provided to  XXXX. Periods in question are listed below : a. XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX b. XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX XXXX. Since XX/XX/XXXX, we have asked the Servicer ( s ) /Servicers Attorneys on  numerous occasions for a settlement/mediation which have been ignored or denied and have led to the extended delinquency period and significant increase to the unpaid principal balance. 

9. The Mortgage account has been handled by ( 3 ) different Servicers and ( 8 ) different attorneys. This has hindered the possibility of a settlement, extended the delinquency period and increased the unpaid principal balance unnecessarily. 

10. XXXX Lender Force Placed Insurance practices have long been found to be unfair, deceptive, and may be illegal, which have harmed homeowners and led to many mortgage defaults as a result. Such insurance premiums were exorbitant, excessive and unjustified. 

It has been established thru the settlement of court cases in New York and Pennsylvania against XXXX XXXX XXXX that the Servicer accepted kickbacks in exchange for using XXXX XXXX for Force-Place Insurance for their residential mortgage borrowers. In exchange, XXXX was required to pay these kickbacks to a XXXX affiliate as commission and such costs were then passed on to borrowers thru excessive and exorbitant Force-Placed Insurance rates. 

XXXX was not alone on this practice and many other Servicers including XXXX XXXX XXXX, which owned XXXX XXXX, were subjected to similar charges and litigation. 

Our homeowner insurance was {$4300.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX charged {$17000.00}. 

11. XXXX 's practice of using robo-signers '' to attest to the amounts due and owned by the Borrowers without confirmation or personal knowledge of such accounts also resulted in many legal cases and settlements. The affidavit submitted by XXXX in our foreclosure case to the court to attest to the amounts owned was signed by XXXX XXXX, who prepared and signed off on foreclosures without reviewing them as the law requires. XXXX XXXX was the XXXX employee who was the first identified as a robo-signer and who acknowledged in sworn deposition that he prepared 400 such foreclosures a day. 

The significance of this is the robo-signing of affidavits and Assignments of Mortgage and all other mortgage foreclosure documents served to cover up the fact that loan servicers can not demonstrate the facts required to conduct a lawful foreclosure. Robo signers who sign off on loans and foreclosure actions without review, may have committed fraud by claiming knowledge of a financial matter of which they had no personal knowledge or did not verify. It could also mean that some people were wrongly foreclosed and evicted from their houses. XXXX 's recognition of liability as a result of this practice lead to the halting of all foreclosure action in 23 states including Florida on XX/XX/XXXX. We assert and believe that have demonstrated through the presentation of documentation on our various correspondence that our mortgage account and payments were mishandled and that XXXX XXXX affirm the amounts due without having personal knowledge of the mortgage account. 
12. Our foreclosure case was also handled by the Florida XXXX XXXX XXXX based in XXXX. This was one of the major foreclosure mills in Florida that were investigated by the Florida Attorney General and the Florida Bar and subject of lawsuits and accusations of falsifying documents to speed up the foreclosure process. This also happened in our case since our attorney was able to show in court how the firm had not provided proper notice of default as required. 

13. Ditech has not been responsive to our previous Settlement Offers & Dispute Letters have not addressed the specific issues at the core of this case. Although Ditech was not the original Servicer at the time the case was opened or took the actions in dispute, we believe this does not relieve Ditech from responsibility to address these issues or seek a resolution. The issues that Ditech has been unresponsive have been : Borrower continuing making payments through XX/XX/XXXX post foreclosure action. 
The Servicer not crediting the Borrowers account for the period the Borrower had insurance coverage The Servicer prior notices regarding Lender Force Placed Insurance and Charges or Escrow Waiver revocation as required by the Mortgage Contract. 
The Servicer force-placed insurance charges that were abusive, exorbitant and unjustified and that the Servicer erroneously classified the policy Tenant Occupied and the year of the home as unknown impacting rate. 
The Servicers has not given fair consideration to the Borrowers request regarding XXXX XXXX   Homeowners Assistance to help homeowners in default prevent foreclosure if they want to keep their home and afford their mortgage payment ;

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation