In early XXXX, I applied for mortgage assistance on my first lien residential mortgage, which was owned by XXXX and serviced by Bank of America. I applied through XXXX XXXX, the lawyer for Bank of America at the firm of XXXX XXXX in XXXX. My application was submitted twice to XXXX XXXX, and twice was submitted by her to her client. Twice, the bank required additional documents. This submission was solicited by XXXX XXXX as part of an effort to settle a counterclaim I had filed in response to a complaint for foreclosure. Eventually, XXXX XXXX moved for dismissal of my counterclaim, and the court granted the motion. From that time forward, Bank of America never decisioned those XXXX submissions, only requesting additional documents, but never moving the file forward. Once the counterclaim was dismissed, the bank stopped processing my request. I submitted it again [ through my attorney 's office ] again in XXXX, and was officially denied around XXXX that year. I complained to XXXX who informed me that the laws all changed on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, so I was to resubmit, which I did in XXXX of XXXX. I was denied again. I appealed, and the appeal was denied. I applied again several more times during XXXX and again each time I was denied, and I appealed and the appeal was denied. Each denial came with a different reason, though my income and expense facts were always the same. The final app was submitted around XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. This time the response was different. The bank responded with a letter stating that an issue existed, and I needed to call the bank to discuss it. I did [ through my attorney 's office ] and was told that my attorney needed to speak with the bank 's attorney. At that time, the law firm for the bank in the foreclosure complaint was XXXX, and XXXX XXXX was the lawyer. She stated several times in reply to email that she was trying to get her client to clarify what this issue was that seemed to be holding up my application. This process continued for about 116 days until XXXX of XXXX, when my attorney reached out to the bank 's social media department, and got special assistance on my application. At that time, the bank revealed that I had been the victim of an attempt to use fraudulent checks to pay-off my first lien mortgage and my HELOC second mortgage, both serviced by the bank. The bank explained that due to this fraud, I was never eligible for a loan modification by the bank. Despite the fact that for two full years, the bank had received my apps, processed them, twice through its own lawyer 's office, and several more times from my lawyer 's office, and several times using channels of management both at the bank and at a remote site here in XXXX, and again through the bank 's regular business lines for this sort of request, at no time did the bank ever truthfully state the situation on my account. But in XXXX, though no laws about this sort of disclosure had changed or been enacted, the bank elected to finally tell me the truth. The bank informed my attorney that it was service-releasing the case to XXXX, and shortly after that happened, I was approved for a XXXX standard modification. 
In XXXX of XXXX, I tried to get the XXXX that I am eligible to be reviewed for, and was denied due to the fraud spoken of above. I was not responsible for this, and by XXXX of XXXX, that flag was removed through my attorney 's efforts. 
I was offered a bank modification for XXXX a month, and the letter stated I was not reviewed for XXXX under XXXX, but that if my first had been modified, I was eligible for review for XXXX. The XXXX Handbook states specifically if my first receives a XXXX Standard Modification, I am eligible for review for XXXX. 
The bank refuses to answer my requests for why I was not reviewed for XXXX, and refuses to review me for the XXXX.