There is a legal correspondence dated XXXX XXXX, XXXX to the Executive offices of Nationstar. Nationstar has yet to provide the information requested to XXXX XXXX 's prior letter dated XXXX XXXX, XXXX. In the abundance of caution, XXXX XXXX has sent a letter of Complaint from the Law offices of XXXX XXXX along with a settlement proposal dated XXXX XXXX, XXXX, as a follow-up to his unanswered XXXX XXXX, XXXX Letter. 
Nationstar ' response dated XXXX XXXX, XXXX states, " Furthermore, in regards to the internal correspondence provided in a resolution package : please understand the conversation was regarding your request for an appeal of the loss mitigation decision with the prior servicer, for which we have provided a Decision Letter .... '' Nationstar ' prior letter dated XXXX XXXX, XXXX states " Furthermore, please be advised Nationstar can not attest to the prior servicer 's actions, including their obligation, underwriting, or lending processes. '' Nationstar continues these evasive and convoluted responses which go to the heart of the issue that Nationstar 's investigation is solely limited to " provid ( ing ) a Decision Letter '' which we have maintained is erroneous and uses incorrect information and inputs. 
Nationstar provided an email communication between XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX of NSTR, with no underlying documents other than the letter itself. ( Attached ) XXXX XXXX XXXX request " figures used to calculate the NPV '', and XXXX XXXX response states " this is what I found from our XXXX denial ''. No figures are provided. 
We allege that the denial was underwritten for the XXXX and not the XXXX program and XXXX has not provided confirmation that this was a DOJ decision instead of XXXX that disallows loans with balances greater than XXXX. XXXX ' continuing references to prior letters have not addressed this specific complaint and are non-responsive. We are requesting validation under DOJ of XXXX performed by XXXX as claimed in the INTEROFFICE EMAILS : Additionally, NSTR 'response letter of XXXX/XXXX/XXXX to XXXX. of CA XXXX. XXXX wherein XXXX claimed my file was evaluated under the DOJ Program & resulted in a negative NPV is materially false.. NSTR confirmed that " NSTR only facilitated documentation creation for DOJ program and an actual calculation of data was run by prior servicer, the previously enclosed DOJ letter of declination, XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, provides the inputs used in the review. " This further confirms XXXX ' absent investigation into facts, and apparent negligent reliance on a XXXX review in XXXX XXXX, performed by prior servicer, and only facilitated by XXXX. 
No comprehensive or analytical research was conducted as required under the XXXX Model XXXX, Supplemental Directive and DOJ guidelines as required under Successor Servicer obligations under Stipulated Judgment when a homeowner provides an Appeal on issues of XXXX and erroneous inputs. This is clearly a XXXX underwriting chart that includes only XXXX correction which was the Appraised Value of {$680000.00}, however the chart makes no offsetting provisions for current outstanding loan balance as {$860000.00} ( field # XXXX ) thereby rendering this particular run as ineligible since it exceeds the XXXX program limit of {$720000.00}. XXXX is using disqualifying inputs without understanding their results or the methodology for proper NPV evaluations or the difference between DOJ and XXXX XXXX modeling. The input fields pertaining to XXXX and principle reduction are shown on the chart and labeled as " null '' which are inconsistent with a DOJ XXXX XXXX run. XXXX created a fail for an altogether different program and uses this as justification for the decline. Therefore, we now request a meeting with an executive level Manager to address these issues. I am also including XXXX QWR for material information used in the alleged decline dated XXXX