Consumer complaint received 2015-06-26
Company: Ditech Financial LLC
State: FL
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Complaint:
This is a story about a XXXX year old widow living in XXXX, Florida named XXXX XXXX. XXXX was born and raised in XXXX XXXX, FL in XXXX. XXXX never had children, but had a wonderful husband to whom she was devoted to for XXXX years. 
Fast forward to XXXX XXXX, when XXXX was XXXX, and at the cusp of the " XXXX '' days of free-wheelin ' mortgage and real estate boom. XXXX has a XXXX bedroom, XXXX bath wood frame home that was built in the XXXX 's where she has resided for the past XXXX years. It 's XXXX XXXX sq. ft., and by most standards in America today, would be considered modest. At the time, XXXX had a social security income of roughly {$800.00} dollars per month, and being an entrepreneur, " sometimes '' had up to another {$1000.00} dollars per month selling items on XXXX that she would XXXX in yard sales. This additional income would vary, but never exceeded {$1000.00}. 
In XXXX, with the real estate values soring ever upward, her modest little home appraised for an astronomical sum. Mortgage money was sloshing around all over the place, and XXXX was there to help provide and lubricate the exuberance. XXXX was enticed to take out a mortgage. A {$130000.00} dollar mortgage. An " Option Arm '' mortgage, that provided " options '' each month as to what she could pay, including " Interest Only, '' and/or various Fixed Rates with Amortizations that she could " pick '' each month. XXXX years, XXXX years, or " anything goes '' some other amortization, i.e. XXXX year, XXXX year, etc. that should could specify and varying each month. A payment plan designed for high income, " Young Upwardly Mobile '' sophisticated borrowers. The " Interest Only '' was based upon a " Jumbo '' Interest Rate of 6.875 % and was the cheapest payment option each month for XXXX 's meager income. This despite XXXX having a Conforming Loan Amount, and Conforming rates being cheaper, as much as 2 % less, a payment difference of {$220.00} per month. ( Conforming loans did not exceed {$460000.00} +/- in loan amount at the time. ) Being approved for the loan which took 50 % of XXXX 's monthly income was tight, but she managed at first. In XXXX of XXXX, with the economy beginning to tank, her XXXX income began to whither, and she began to get behind. Like many to that fell prey to this, foreclosure arrived at her doorstep and her defense was not enough. Sadly, she was finally adjudged in XXXX and the final foreclosure sale is in XXXX. 
XXXX should never have been approved for this loan. Approving a convoluted loan for anyone whose source of income is unpredictable, and approving it with the knowledge of taking half of it each months meager income, charging her a Jumbo Interest Rate as opposed to a Conforming Interest Rate to base the payment, and knowing in good conscience that she did n't have a " Snowballs Chance in XXXX '' to pay this, is beyond the governments definition of PREDATORY LENDING, ITS UNCONSCIENABLE AND EVIL.

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