This complaint is based on Nationstar 's ( NSTR ) letter of XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX to the Office of California Attorney General. NSTR claims that my file was evaluated under the DOJ Program ( DOJ/HMS ), and resulted in a negative NPV. This is a false statement and is their justification for decline. Therefore we are requesting validation under DOJ of the NPV performed by NSTR. 
NSTR response continues to provide no viable explanations or investigation into facts which have been presented to them. It also confirms NSTR incorrect conclusion, alleging they performed an NPV test under DOJ when clearly the decline is based on a MHA/HAMP review. In this reply NSTR also confirms that, " Nationstar only facilitated documentation creation for the DOJ program and an actual calculation of the data was run by the prior servicer, the previously enclosed DOJ letter of declination, dated XXXX XXXX, XXXX, provides the inputs used in the review. " This further confirms NSTR lack of any investigation into facts, their negligent reliance on a XXXX review from XXXX XXXX ( performed by prior servicer ) which was only facilitated by NSTR. No comprehensive or analytical research has been conducted as required under the MHA Model v5.02, Supplemental Directive and DOJ guidelines as required under their Successor Servicer obligations under the Stipulated Judgment when homeowners submit Appeals on issues of NPV and erroneous inputs. 
This is clearly a HAMP underwriting chart that includes only XXXX correction, the Appraised Value of {$680000.00}. The chart makes no offsetting provisions for current outstanding loan balance as {$860000.00} ( field # XXXX ) thereby rendering this particular run ineligible since it exceeds the HAMP program limit of {$720000.00}. NSTR is using disqualifying & erroneous inputs without acknowledging these incorrect results. It appears they do not understand the proper methodology for correctly implementing NPV evaluations, as well as, seemingly not knowing the difference between DOJ, MHA/HAMP & NPV modeling. This declination can not be based on input fields pertaining to mark to market and principle reduction, shown on the chart and labeled as " null ''. NSTR created a fail for an altogether different program & uses this as justification for the decline. NSTR evens fails to acknowledge that based on the income in the file from XXXX that under the XXXX % debt-to-income guideline, it is impossible to fail the DOJ program which was designed as " retest until pass program ''. 
Excerpt from the DOJ Stipulated Judgement, Paragraph vi that addresses NPV. Exhibit XXXX, Page XXXX XXXX A Settlement Loan Modification is a modification made according to the following priority : vi ) In all instances, the adjustments must be limited so as to provide a positive NPV, with the calculation based on the Treasury NPV model outcome. If, following the priority above, the modification produces a negative NPV, the steps in the priority will be adjusted ( in reverse order ) to produce successive XXXX % increases in DTI ( but in no event higher than XXXX % ), and the NPV model will be re-run after each 1 % payment adjustment. Modifications will be offered at the lowest DTI solution that is NPV-positive .... 
NSTR XXXX XXXX, XXXX letter draws conclusion on a XXXX % DTI claiming negative NPV even at the limits which is not mathematically possible based on income and a correct Mark-to-market loan value based on Appraised value of {$680000.00} as mention by NSTR themselves. 
Therefore, in addition please consider this a " Qualified Written Request '' under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, codified as Section 2605 ( e ) of Title 12 of the United States Code. ( 12 USC 2605 ( e ) ) .Once again I am requesting : 1 ) All runs-of-record for the NPV modeling conducted both by NSTR and XXXX , 2 ) Run Dates 3 ) Code version of runs 4 ) Any error code results.