Consumer complaint received 2017-04-24
Company: Ditech Financial LLC
State: PA
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage

Complaint:
Our loan was originated on  XXXX   XXXX ,  XXXX , with  XXXX   XXXX  and  XXXX   XXXX , our loan was to be underwritten as a low fixed rate loan which would be fixed at a 4 %, which was switched at closing to a 7 %. This rate created a significant increase in the overall mortgage for many years to come.  XXXX   XXXX  sold our loan to  XXXX  just before the housing market crashed. Once the market crashed in  XXXX , our equity had dropped so severely that no bank would refinance our loan from a 7 %, although we had very good credit scores. We financially forged onward and continued making our payments faithfully until  XXXX , when I lost my job as an educator.   I have been defending our interest in the subject property since our loan was being serviced by  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  (  XXXX   ) i n  XXXX .  XXXX , considered our family for modification however our payments remained still too high, and did not help in overcoming our hardship.   Please note that on  XXXX   XXXX ,  XXXX , bailout bill created  TARP, the Troubled Asset Recovery   Program. The U.S.  Treasury spent   XXXX    XXXX  to buy preferred stock in  XXXX  banks that were too big to fail. Due to the fact that  XXXX , took TARP, money from the government which was ultimately mishandled by  XXXX .  XXXX , was supposed to aid homeowners such as qualifying families such as ours. In particularly a loan which carried heavy negative Loan to Value  ( LTV ) r esults, as indicated in to broker price opinion ( BPO ) completed by  XXXX , at the time. However,  XXXX , approved us for loan modification assistance and our interest rate was reduced from 7 % to 5 %, although the modification placed all of our late payments to the back of the loan. The reduction in rate was too minimal and only effected our overall payments in the least bit. We do not feel that the loan modification followed the correct guidelines for HAMP, and they were not estimated based on broker price opinions ( BPO ) findings at the time, but rather the outstanding loan amounts during the delinquency in  XXXX . At no point did  XXXX , attempt to defer any of our loan amounts in order to achieve the 31 % threshold of our gross income at the time, nor did  XXXX  adhere to HAMP guidelines. 31 % of your total gross monthly income. At the time our gross income was {$ XXXX }, which would equate to payments of approximately {$680.00}, taxes and insurance included under HAMP. We were threatened that if we did not accept the loan modification offer our hoe would be sold.   Furthermore,  XXXX , was sanctioned by the Federal government, they were fined and also forced to pay restitution duties assigned under the terms of th e National Mortgage Settlement ( NMS ) o f  XXXX .  XXXX , was sued for not following the terms and conditions from to assist struggling homeowners by acceptance of mortgage Bailout.  XXXX , was essentially found guilty of misguiding, mishandling homeowners during the modification process, foreclosing while trial payments were being made as well as refusing to follow the underwriting guidelines under HAMP, etc. and a multitude of issues surrounding mishandling monies accepted from TARP.   In  XXXX , Greentree ( GT ) began increasing my escrow balance significantly with no explanation nor warning to the amount of {$2200.00} per year. Once this increase was made by GT, my payments went up to {$850.00}. They also placed a force-placed insurance policy on my loan although I had an active hazard insurance policy in place with my own carrier. This force-placed policy increased my mortgage payments by more than {$1000.00}. At the beginning of  XXXX  we received notification that our property tax would increase to {$990.00} per year, not {$2200.00}, as reflected by GT.   My loan was transferred from  XXXX , and was serviced by GreenTree in  XXXX  and Effective  XXXX   XXXX ,  XXXX ,  Greentree Servicing and Dietech Mortgage Corp.,  Both companies are owned by  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  combined. I also feel that our loan was sold and or transferred to  XXXX , in an attempt to avoid offering our family any benefits resulting from the NMS. The qualifying income, and  XXXX  reports from the  XXXX  modification review process will reveal the truth of the matter, BAC, has avoided responding to previous inquires surrounding this subject matter. Payments although reduced, the reduction in payments were not consistent with negative values and remand to be a burden after the modification was completed.    Greentree Servicing and Dietech Mortgage Corp, have  also made false claims, that proof of service was attempted multiple times at my property residence. They went on to violate the fair debt collect ions act ( FDCPA ), by  knocking on our neighbors doors asking them to give a message to me regarding our personal business matters. Personal information was disclosed during this contacts with my neighbors. These individuals have signed affidavit statements to this effect and please note that these were not authorized parties to my loan. The FDCPA (  15 U.S.C. 1692 to    1692p ) req uires that a collection agency make certain disclosures and prohibits the collector from engaging in many kinds of abusive or deceptive behavior. Furthermore Im a stay at home mom and Im always home.     Currently, we are fighting against a foreclosure judgement whic h Greentree Servicing and Dietech  Mortgage Corp, are attempting to gain via the judicial foreclosure process in our state. We are considering filing a civil lawsuit on this matter.

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