As a result of the financial crisis and diminished household income during that time, my mortgage fell into default in XX/XX/XXXX. Subsequently, the plaintiff, and alleged owner of my loan, Deutsche Bank National Trust, filed a Mortgage foreclosure action in XX/XX/XXXX(See exhibit XXXX). After researching numerous programs for assistance, I filled out an application with the XXXX Help Program which executes the Federal Hardest Hit Fund for our area. This application was initiated in XX/XX/XXXX (see exhibit XXXX).
	 As I'm sure you are aware, the Federal Hardest Hit Fund, along with most other assistance programs, has certain requirements in order to complete the application and receive the assistance. In this case, and in order to comply with the program requirements, the past due amounts must be provided and the fees itemized in order to complete the application process. Shortly after beginning the application process, I contacted the XXXX law firm which is the firm representing the plaintiff. I requested documentation in compliance with the South Carolina Help Program (Federal Hardest Hit Fund) program requirements. The XXXX attempt by the plaintiff's law firm was in XX/XX/XXXX (see exhibit XXXX). As you can see, the fees and costs were lumped together in one number and was found to be unacceptable by the staff of the South Carolina Help Program (Federal Hardest Hit Fund).  Numerous other attempts were made during the past 3 years to obtain a reinstatement letter in compliance with the program requirements. The most recent correspondence being in XX/XX/XXXX (see exhibit XXXX). As you can see in this letter, the fees and costs are again lumped into one amount and this is again not in compliance with the requirements of the program. XXXX footnote with this letter is the fee and cost number is lower than the XX/XX/XXXX letter. This leads me to believe that some of the fees and costs are now lumped into the delinquent payments and advances number. However, without a specific break down of each number, I cannot correctly determine their containment.
                As a caveat to this situation, the South Carolina XXXX Court implemented an intervention requirement for Mortgage Foreclosure actions in XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX of the provisions of this order is specified below: 
(c) that the mortgagor has been afforded a full and fair opportunity to submit any other information or data pertaining to the mortgagor's loan or personal circumstances for consideration by the Mortgagee.
	In a letter to the XXXX Law Firm, I requested additional time in order to submit accurate tax returns which best reflected my financial situation (see exhibit XXXX). In their response to my letter, the law firm denied my request (see exhibit XXXX). Needless to say, the staff of the XXXX Law Firm ignored this intervention requirement and moved ahead with the foreclosure process. 
 	Moving forward to today, I have not yet received itemized numbers which are sufficiently broken down in compliance with the South Carolina Help Program (Federal Hardest Hit Fund) and therefore my application remains pending. Rather, the attorney XXXX along with his paralegalXXXX, both of the XXXX Law Firm, and on behalf of the plaintiff, has just recently filed a Notice of Supplemental Hearing (see exhibit XXXX).  After confirming, I learned that this is indeed an attempt to set a sale date on my residence.
	In conclusion, the plaintiff, XXXX, through its counsel, the Finkel Law Firm, seems intent upon "Dual Tracking" this entire process rather than simply providing the itemized numbers in compliance with the South Carolina Help Program (Federal Hardest Hit Fund).