Consumer complaint received 2015-05-12
Company: JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
State: CA
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Home equity loan or line of credit
Issue: Loan servicing, payments, escrow account

Complaint:
A blameless mortgage borrower is being forced to bear the burden of what was at most an act XXXX aggravated by the lending bank 's negligence. The facts are as follows : Faced with payment shock -- a tripling of monthly payments in the near future and the prospect of future financial hardship -- borrower fedexed JP Morgan Chase ( hereinafter 'Chase ' or 'bank ' ) a documented loan modification application on XXXX/XXXX/15. Borrower has never been delinquent or even late in her payments on either this loan or a prior mortgage held by Chase ( long since paid off ). Neither a NOD ( Notice of Delinquency ), nor steps leading to foreclosure were ever taken by Chase. 

On XXXX XXXX borrower received a mutilated and mangled rejection letter with enclosures. Too late to call on the XXXX, a call to Chase 's so-called 'single point of contact ' was made very early the next morning seeking a replacement duplicate copy. Repeated calls to alert the bank that a replacement copy still had n't been received were made on XXXX/XXXX/15 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX/XXXX/15 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX/XXXX/2015 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX/XXXX/15 XXXX and XXXX/XXXX/2015 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. They were all met with recurring promises of the bank 's immediate action including several statements that it was already in transit. Yet a fully readable copy did not arrive until late XXXX/XXXX/15 ( postmarked XXXX/XXXX/15 ). 

At the same time, Mr.Yates and XXXX levels of supervisory staff above him ( XXXX XXXX & XXXX XXXX XXXX refused to suspend the running of time to appeal or to extend the due date of the appeal. Indeed, Chase even refused to recognize that the due date on a Sunday automatically extends the time to the next business day or Monday XXXX XXXX. It took several calls and a trip up XXXX supervisory levels to overcome that refusal. 

While a delinquent borrower might try to delay foreclosure proceedings with all sorts of appeals and extensions : THAT IS NOT THE CASE HERE. There is no looming foreclosure ( or even a possibility ). This loan has never been delinquent or late in its 10 year life. In fact, Chase held the predecessor mortgage -- also without any delinquency. So there is a 20+ year spotless history with Chase XXXX 

More time to file a well-researched and reasoned appeal with documented facts WILL COST CHASE NOTHING in either time or money. Nothing is pending. No NOD 's. No foreclosure proceedings. Nothing... 

All we seek is enough time to gather information and evidence showing material defects in Chase 's loan mitigation inputs and analysis. This includes house valuation, gross income, and erroneous liabilities listed in their modification letter, etc. It is not the borrower 's fault that the modification rejection letter arrived mangled and its replacement took 20 days to arrive. At least, half a dozen documented calls were made ( starting the day after receipt ) seeking a viable replacement copy. 

Moreover, Chase 's own denial letter calls for " written detailed reasons why you ( sic ) disagree with the outcome of your ( sic ) application. '' ( denial letter dated XXXX XXXX, 2015 at XXXX ) Yet, borrower is being wrongfully deprived of the necessary time to request information and to rebut errors with documented facts. There is enough facial evidence showing significant errors were made, such as Chase 's erroneous lowball property valuation used in their NPV analysis, but the time necessary to detail the opposing facts and to determine their import to Chase 's denial has been wrongfully withheld. 

Chase insistence that the time to appeal still be counted from XXXX XXXX is facially and logically unfair. Borrower understands that, by law, lender is not obligated to grant loan modifications. Although Chase may not be legally obligated to grant them, once it establishes a loan modification review process, it is obliged to administer that process in a fair manner and in good faith. It has n't. 

At the ti

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation