XXXX and XXXX XXXX ( hence " XXXX '' ) hereby submit a complaint to the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau pursuant to 12 USC 2601 et seq. ( The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA ) and 12 CFR 1024.41 ( Loss mitigation procedures ) because the XXXX ( hence " Bank '' ) failed to provide a proper review of a loss mitigation package for a modification and reinstatement of the subject loan. 
Summary : XXXX defaulted on the mortgage in XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX has sought a loan modification since XX/XX/XXXX. The Bank continues to request more and more documentation, yet fails to consider 99 % of the XXXX 's income in the review. Accordingly, the Bank continues to deny a modification without basis. 
Background : On XXXX XXXX, XXXX, four-month-old XXXX XXXX was severely injured when his baby carriage was struck by a taxicab in XXXX. This left XXXX with permanent cognitive impairment. This impairment limits his ability to obtain employment and manage his affairs. XXXX % of XXXX XXXX 's income comes from The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. 
XXXX and XXXX XXXX are married. XXXX owns XXXX homestead real property in XXXX County, XXXX financed through the Bank. The real property at issue was purchased and a house constructed at the height of the market in XXXX when everything was at its most expensive. Further, the mortgage is at a premium interest rate for the period of time in question. 
Due to a reduction in the LLP income, tax issues and poor planning ; the mortgage was defaulted upon in XXXX XXXX. By XXXX, corrective steps were put in place to remedy the problems. Since XX/XX/XXXX, by and through our attorney, XXXX XXXX Firm P.A. and XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX has sought a modification and reinstatement of the loan. After submitting the initial loss mitigation package, the bank has made numerous requests to obtain additional financial documentation over and above what was submitted. Over the period in question, approximately one dozen supplements were requested and provided to the Bank. See Exhibit A for a historical timeline of events. 
XX/XX/XXXX Loss Mitigation Efforts : The latest loss mitigation package was submitted in XXXX XXXX. The third request for additional information from the Bank was submitted on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX to include an Affidavit from The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) dated XXXX XXXX, XXXX signed by XXXX XXXX, managing director, explaining the distributions only applicable to XXXX XXXX for the years XXXX, XXXX and year to date XXXX as well as providing the projected distributions for XXXX ; again submitting updated bank statements to include XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX bank statement account ending in XXXX from XXXX XXXX, XXXX through XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX account ending in XXXX from XXXX XXXX, XXXX through XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX bank statements for account ending in XXXX and XXXX good through XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX bank statements for account ending in XXXX good through XXXX XXXX, XXXX. See Exhibit B for a timeline of events as to XXXX only. 
The servicing agent, Select Portfolio Servicing Inc. ( hence " SPS '' ), via correspondence dated XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, denied any loss mitigation options for XXXX indicating that the account is not eligible for a modification. SPS states the reason being that the NPV results showed that the modification is not in the financial interest of the investor that owns your account. SPS indicates that the NPV value is based on the unpaid principal balance before modification, interest rate before modification, remaining term, principal and interest payment before modification, monthly real estate taxes, monthly hazard and flood insurance, homeowners association dues, how many months past due, mortgage insurance coverage, monthly income and other factors. However, SPS only considered the monthly gross wages of XXXX XXXX in the amount of {$1300.00} and n