Consumer complaint received 2016-08-15
Company: Ditech Financial LLC
State: FL
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)
Issue: Loan servicing, payments, escrow account

Complaint:
Our clients, XXXX and XXXX XXXX, who have lived in their home located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, FL XXXX ( with loan number XXXX ) since XXXX was granted a trail period plan from their former servicer Green Tree, which caused Green Tree 's attorney 's to file on XXXX XXXX, XXXX a motion to cancel the foreclosure sale. The XXXX XXXX sale was cancelled ; and on XXXX XXXX, XXXX and XXXX received an offer to modify their loan, albiet, initially, on a trial period plan ( TPP ) basis. After accepting that TPP, executing it and making XXXX timely payments with good funds, but before issuing a permanent loan modification, which ostensibly they were required to do, Green Tree transferred the servicing rights of the XXXX 's loan to Ditech/BOA, which refused to honor the Green Tree agreement and refused issue a permanent loan modification. Instead the Dalids were required to submit a new request for mortgage assistance together with a complete financial disclosure package, as if they were starting the loan modification process all over again from scratch ( which ostensibly breached Green Tree 's implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which would have required Green Tree to issue the XXXX 's a permanent loan modification agreement. Once again the Dalids completed the requested forms and obtained not a permanent loan modification agreement, but another, this the second, TPP commencing on XXXX XXXX. On XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, attorney for plaintiff, filed a motion to cancel the XXXX XXXX sale, but this time Judge XXXX XXXX XXXX, senior judge, denied the motion and on XXXX XXXX, Ditech/XXXX through its attorneys, proceeded with the sale resulting in the Clerk of the XXXX XXXX in case no XXXX to issue a certificate of title of the XXXX 's property into BONY-M 's name, as Trustee for the Certificateholders of the XXXX, XXXX, Asset backed certificated, XXXX XXXX, despite the fact that the XXXX 's continued to make their TPP payments in XXXX, XXXX and XXXX XXXX/Ditech and their counsel failed to dismiss the lawsuit, instead on XXXX XXXX, XXXX lender 's counsel continued prosecuting the foreclosure case seeking to have the XXXX 's removed from their home in clear contravention of the CFPB guidelines. Then, the XXXX XXXX hearing on Plaintiff 's motion to for a writ of possession was rescheduled with the expectation that the lender and its counsel would simply dismiss the foreclosure case ; however, rather than dismissing the case, DITECH/BOA and its counsel rescheduled the hearing on the writ of possession for XXXX XXXX, XXXX, after the XXXX 's filed an objection to the foreclosure sale, issuance of certificate of title and motion to vacate and/or set aside the foreclosure sale and memorandum of law in support. Lender 's counsel failed to show up at the hearing on XXXX XXXX and therefore the court entered an order deferring the hearing on the Motion for Writ until XXXX XXXX, XXXX. Prior to the hearing, the XXXX 's filed proof of payment of their XXXX trial period plan payments together with an affidavit. Nonetheless, rather than staying the proceedings or dismissing the case, as CFPB guidelines require, lender, through counsel, moved forward with its motion for writ of possession. The judge ruled in favor of the XXXX 's and denied the motion for the writ and rescinded the sale and vacated the certificate of title. The court then entered an order granting the XXXX 's their attorney 's fees and costs. The XXXX 's were recently notified that their lender 's refuse to pay the attorney 's fees and costs.

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