The mortgagors are the defendants in foreclosure case No.XXXX In XXXX, FL. On XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX, the bank 's witness testified that the Bank never considered or evaluated Defendants ' application for Modification, failing to comply with the condition agreed to by the parties in the Consent Judgment. After hearing this testimony, the Judge vacated the Certificate of Sale and the Certificate of Title and sustained Defendants ' Objection to the Sale. The Order also commanded Defendants to submit a full package to Plaintiff for Modification evaluation within 15 days and gave Plaintiff 45 days to review the package and approve or deny the application. Defendants submitted the package within 15 days, to wit on XXXX XXXX, XXXX. XXXX XXXX requested XXXX more month of Bank Statements and a Profit and Loss statement. Two days later XXXX XXXX clarified the time frame for the Profit and Loss statement. On XXXX XXXX, XXXX, the requested Bank Statements and Profit and Loss statement were submitted by Defendants More than 45 days passed without the Plaintiff approving or denying the application. 
On XXXX XXXX, XXXX, more than 2 months after the application was sent and 48 days after supplemental documents were provided, the undersigned 's office inquired about the status of the modification review. XXXX XXXX answered on XXXX XXXX, indicating that he was travelling and would reply soon. During the week of XXXX XXXX, XXXX, our office again contacted XXXX XXXX to inquire about the modification review resulting in XXXX XXXX 's request that Defendants provide more supporting documents. The documents requested were provided by Defendants on XXXX XXXX, XXXX. On XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX months after the Court Order 's deadline, Plaintiff 's Servicer issued a denial of the Modification Request, which contained no information to explain the grounds for the denial, which resulted in an appeal of such denial. On XXXX XXXX, XXXX, the appeal was denied by Flagstar without providing again clear reasons. The Bank 's refusal to process the modification as agreed by the parties in the consent judgment, the further refusal to abide by the Court 's Order of processing the modification within 45 days and completing it 4 months later, resulted in a delay that hurt Mortgagors ' chances to achieve a modification. The Bank agreed in the Consent Judgment on XXXX XXXX to consider a modification, and only on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, 21 months later, came up with a resolution. 
Flagstar 's illegal actions and unacceptable delays caused the homeowners to lose until now the chance to save their home. Flagstar Bank violated Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 's Mortgage Servicing Rules, by delaying approving or denying borrower applications, denying applications for unspecified reasons and affecting the outcome of the application due to Flagstar excessive delays. Part of Flagstar 's illegal actions took place after the CFPB took enforcement action against Flagstar on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, ordering among other things that Flagstar " [ E ] nd all loss mitigation mortgage servicing violations. '' In a total disregard for CFPB 's Order, and the Court 's Order, Flagstar continued delaying the last application through XXXX, XXXX, XXXX and XXXX of XXXX and then through XXXX XXXX, and only on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, communicated a defective denial. 
We have supporting documents for each of the steps mentioned in this complaint and request that Flagstar 's violations and illegal acts be severely punished.