Consumer complaint received 2016-08-18
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: IL
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional fixed mortgage
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Complaint:
Please reference complaints : XXXX XXXX XXXX These complaints contain 6 years of history requesting our mortgage owner Bank of America, the Servicer of mortgage, XXXX, and the second lien holder XXXX. Each time we received responses where one bank blamed another and not taking responsibility for failure to request the desired solution. After your agency 's effort, and our persistent complaining, we received approval for a deed-in-lieu. This was the desired resolution requested in those aforementioned complaints ( copies attached ). Bank of America then approved and issued a proposed deed-in-lieu ( copy attached ). 

What was requested is for us to move out in two weeks, which was impossible since we have over XXXX square feet of property, a XXXX car garage, and a partially finished basement. The moving company could not move until XXXX XXXX. Our move will be out of state. When requested to extend that date, we received no response. We have unsuccessfully sought assistance from the mortgage servicer XXXX. 

Additionally, the deed-in- lieu proposal from Bank of America 's attorneys provided no protection from further personal liability, unlike what my attorney has seen before. The wording in fact stated several times that they could seek any deficiency after they received the deed. Our sole assets are a government pension, social security and a XXXX retirement account. Bank of America 's attorneys have stated they required they include such deficiency statements with a deed-in-lieu. The same language could also be included in a foreclosure or short sale resolution. In past complaints Bank of America has taken no culpability stating XXXX is the servicer. Now, it is Bank of America and their attorneys who are culpable and need to remove the language that allows a deficiency judgement. 

Bank of America purchased the Loan from XXXX after XXXX took over the original mortgage in successor to XXXX. We were never notified of this until Bank of America issued a summons to us to start foreclosure proceedings. We have been in and out court with the bank attorneys can not explain the public record which does n't show the final mortgage, only a construction loan of {$600000.00} ; this perplexed the foreclosure judge. The public record also shows the 2nd mortgage and a home equity loan, which were with XXXX and XXXX, respectively. XXXX has agreed to defer the remaining balance to {$6000.00} to be paid by XXXX upon settlement. 

The second item stopping foreclosure is the Bank of America attorney can not reconcile the amount of the purported final mortgage amount, which is not filed in public record. However, documents provided by the attorney in court show a calculation error whereby the balance of the construction notice was to be increased by the extras added during the construction period. The balance was actually added to the original amount of the construction loan. 

ll

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation