Consumer complaint received 2016-12-29
Company: Ditech Financial LLC
State: FL
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional fixed mortgage
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Complaint:
Green Tree, now known as Ditech Financial filed a foreclosure complaint ( w/o note attached ) in XXXX even after the Florida Hardest Hit ( FHH ) paid them {$18000.00} in XXXX to bring the loan current and while I was being considered for a modification. I continued to make payments on the mortgage until my payments were refused. 

A foreclosure judgment was entered on XX/XX/XXXX after my attorney withdrew and failed to protect my interest. I was unrepresented at trial. The amount of the judgment was {$120000.00} which included a principal balance of {$85000.00}. 

The foreclosure sale was scheduled for XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. An order extending the sale to XXXX/XXXX/XXXX was entered. There was a pending motion to vacate the foreclosure judgment but was a moot issue so long as I was able to close prior to XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. I have a pending contract for sale to a buyer who is ready, willing and able to close any day. 

The attorney for the lender, XXXX XXXX, insisted on having the Motion to Vacate heard even though it would be a moot point if we were able to close prior to XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. The hearing was scheduled for XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. At the hearing scheduled by XXXX to have the Motion to Vacate heard XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, my attorney argued the judgment amount did not include the {$18000.00} paid by FHH in XXXX. It was not included in the accounting filed with the court. Judge XXXX ordered Plaintiff ( lender ) to provide an accounting that included the {$18000.00}. XXXX requested 20 days to provide a payoff but was ordered to do so in 10 days. When my realtor, XXXX XXXX, spoke with a XXXX attorney on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, she was told that her client never received the {$18000.00} payment. 

Plaintiff 's attorney scheduled a hearing without notifying my attorney of the hearing and had the motion to vacate the foreclosure judgment heard. The Motion was denied because my attorney was not present. When my attorney called the Plaintiff 's attorney, XXXX XXXX, to ask about the hearing and where the confusion was, XXXX told him that there was an order entered and the accounting provided to the courts reflected the {$18000.00}. XXXX then told my attorney to ask XXXX. In an email to XXXX XXXX, my attorney requested to be pointed to where the {$18000.00} is reflected in the accounting provided to the court. XXXX ' response was that this was a delay tactic and they will seek sanctions. 

I requested a payoff so that I can sell the property. The buyer has been patiently waiting to purchase the home. The contract price is $ XXXX. The property was appraised for $ XXXX. I am attempting to sell the property rather than letting it be sold at auction. I repeatedly requested updated payoffs. Since the XXXX/XXXX/XXXX foreclosure judgment was entered, the payoff has increased by {$16000.00} ( now over {$140000.00} ). When I received the XXXX/XXXX/XXXX payoff, the corporate advance was {$7600.00}. The most recent payoff shows a corporate advance in the amount of {$12000.00}. I asked for an explanation of the corporate advance in XXXX through my realtor. The attorney 's payoff department, XXXX XXXX, told my realtor that the lender will not provide this amount. My attorney asked about it again XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, XXXX contested it saying this is the first time it was brought up which is a false statement. 

The corporate advance states it covers property preservation, inspections, BPOs and attorney 's fees. There are also separate line items for attorney 's fees and costs. The property is occupied by me, no inspections of the property by the lender, no short sale request therefore no need for any BPOs. There are several inconsistencies, see late charges, actual/incurred attorney foreclosure fees and costs. 

I would like a proper accounting of the Ditech payoff so I can close on the sale of my home and avoid a foreclosure sale. This way all lenders will receive full payment.

Company public response: Company believes the complaint is the result of a misunderstanding
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation