We have been working with this servicer, Fay, for almost 1 year to complete a mortgage modification for our home. We 've been trying to get a modification done for almost 2 years. Fay has scheduled several sheriff sale 's sales while our completed modification package has been in review. They have told us that they do not have to look at our loss mitigation package since it 's not 37 days prior to a sale which is not true for Minnesota.

This pastXX/XX/XXXX, a sale date was set for XX/XX/XXXX. I sent a completed loss mitigation package to them in early XX/XX/XXXX. They declined us based on income/debt ratio onXX/XX/XXXX. I received a significant increase in annual income ( 30 % ) beginning XX/XX/XXXX, and was advised by XXXX XXXX at Fay to immediately send in a new loss mitigation packet since this was a definite change in circumstance. The packet was received and deemed complete within a few days. We waited with no word from Fay until Thursday, XX/XX/XXXX when I called. After to speaking with XXXX XXXX she informed me that indeed the sale was NOT suspended and Fay was not entitled to review the packet since it was not submitted 37 days prior to the scheduled sale date. I informed her that Minnesota has a law that allows homeowners 7 business days. She mentioned that there was nothing she could do. My attorney immediately contacted their local representation, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX out of XXXX. We did not hear until late Monday afternoon ( the day of the sale ) that the sale was indeed postponed until Monday, XX/XX/XXXX.

Since XX/XX/XXXX I 've tried to contact XXXX XXXX every couple of days for status, but have yet to this day, been able to reach her. The XXXX  ( the new date ) quickly approached with no ability to receive any status. TheXX/XX/XXXXcame and we were not informed until late in the day that in fact the sale did happen. It was n't until Wednesday theXX/XX/XXXX, that we received a letter from Fay dated XX/XX/XXXX that there was no change between our XX/XX/XXXX application andXX/XX/XXXX application. Simply not true since there was the increase in income. Further, Fay did not give us any opportunity to appeal and explain their obvious error since we received the denial letter after the sheriff sale took place.

After conversations and careful review with my attorney, we decided that we had no other choice but to sue Fay Servicing to rescind the illegal sale of our home. We have also filed complaints with the Minnesota Department of Commerce and the Attorney General 's office. The DOC has opened an investigation based on our claims and lawsuit. Both offices have requested a response in which Fay has done. ( see attached letter from Fay to the DOC dated incorrectly asXX/XX/XXXX. The DOC did not start their investigation untilXX/XX/XXXX ) The letter clearly contradicts what Fay has told me and my attorney on numerous occasions that they did in fact review ourXX/XX/XXXX application and that we would QUALIFY for a loan modification but it was not offered because there was no change in income. My annual salary increased 40 % XX/XX/XXXXand we sent in supporting paystubs along with a letter from my employer confirming the increase in salary. The Attorney General 's office received the packet of information from Fay that the Department of Commerce received.

We filed a lawsuit based on the fact that Fay Servicing broke the law. ( MN Statute 582.043 Subd. 6 ) Fay Servicing continued " dual tracking '' by receiving our loss mitigation packet on XX/XX/XXXX. They did not halt the foreclosure sale, and did not give us any opportunity for an appeal on a denial. In addition to the lawsuit, we also filed a temporary restraining order to stay any eviction that Fay may pursue since our redemption period ends XX/XX/XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX and a lis pendens on the title. The hearing was scheduled for Friday, XX/XX/XXXX Fay 's attorney did reach out to my attorney on Thursday, XX/XX/XXXX with a settlement offer to move out byXX/XX/XXXX and receive {$5000.00} for cash for keys. We declined the offer, and looked forward to our day in court to prove Fay illegally sold our home. On Friday afternoon XX/XX/XXXX Fay 's attorney reached out with a new offer to properly review our loss mitigation packet and not to evict for 60 days if we remove our motion for a temporary restraining order. We agreed.

At this point, we have submitted a NEW loss mitigation packet along with XX/XX/XXXXXXXX copies that show the increase in salary we expressed back inXX/XX/XXXX. I am skeptical, but hopeful.