I am filing this complaint because of misrepresentation and malicious deferral tactics from both of the lenders referenced above regarding the short sale of my property. 

1. On or around XX/XX/XXXX my property was appraised at {$590000.00} by a professional appraiser. An offer was submitted to Penny Mac for {$590000.00} that was not refuted at that time either on property valuation or the calculations submitted on the preliminary HUD itself. 
2. On or around XX/XX/XXXX XXXX requested a payoff letter from Penny Mac in order to issue its own payoff letter for the short sale. At that time, a payoff letter was requested from Penny Macs plaintiff law firm ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), from the Penny Mac general customer service line, and from our single point of contact at Penny Mac, XXXX XXXX XXXX. The Plaintiff firm stated it would take at least a week to escalate this matter and claims to have sent 3-4 escalation requests through their XXXX portal to Penny Mac for a payoff letter. 
3. On XX/XX/XXXX after seven months in the short sale review and negotiation process, I received a written short sale eligibility confirmation from the primary lienholder Penny Mac pending approval from the subordinate lienholder, XXXX XXXX. That confirmation letter did not mention insufficient time to review, a different fair market value of the property or requirement to increase net proceeds to Penny Mac. It only stated that XXXX approval of Penny Macs short sale deal had to be received no later than XX/XX/XXXX ( Attached ) 4. Again, XXXX insisted that in order to issue their payoff, they needed to see Penny Macs short sale payoff first. Penny Mac could not release this information to XXXX because, according to an online chat with XXXX in the loss mitigation department, Penny Mac needed a fee breakdown from its own lawyers ( see attached chat transcript of XX/XX/XXXX ).  Penny Mac would escalate the request, which would take 3-5 business days. 
5. On or around XX/XX/XXXX we received a payoff letter from Penny Mac, which was sent to XXXX, only after asking for it and escalating it over a dozen times. I am certain that without our intervention it likely would not have been sent at all. To date we have not received anything from XXXX. 
6. As XX/XX/XXXX approached, and in the weeks that followed, my attorneys office contacted both Penny Mac and XXXX at least 40 times, each time the one lender deferring to the other in order to move the file forward ( see attached call log ). 
7. Between XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX stopped answering their phones because of the merger between XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX. When they did start answering their phones, we were informed, no escalation requests can be made because our new systems are not ready. They also stated that when it came to removing the lien from the bankruptcy process instead of receiving a short sale approval, guaranteeing XXXX no money from the proceeds of the sale, they stated you have to do what you have to do and understood that this could be at a loss to them. This has lasted to the present day. Please note : With all its self-aggrandizing PR regarding its Chief Customer Officer, Office of the Customer and customer centered culture, XXXX does not provide any direct customer service email address or have a consumer advocacy/escalation department!! 
8. On or around XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX assured she was working with the investor group directly despite XXXX failure to provide payoff information. She assured that the short sale was in the process of being approved and she would cancel the judicial sale as soon as the investors gave the go-ahead. We asked for an approval of 45 days from the XXXX to allow for approval of the short sale itself and XXXX stated that she would confirm with the investors that it would be okay. 
9. On or around XX/XX/XXXX, I received notice that a judicial has been scheduled for XX/XX/XXXX due to insufficient time for review, lack of XXXX loan approval, home not priced at fair market value and insufficient proceeds for Penny Mac on the HUD. Our documentation shows that these reasons are invalid. Penny Mac is presumably relying on XXXX XXXX  and other web valuation sites that are all currently under multiple lawsuits for the over-estimation of what a property is worth -- often overstating as much as five times the current value of the home itself. Nowhere during the process when it came to valuation were we told our HUD had to be modified to increase the net proceeds that Penny Mac would receive. This was the first time we received this information after continually confirming with them that the HUD was approved in relation to Penny Macs net.

It is our legal position that the actions of both lenders are in violation of RESPA regulations. Under RESPA lenders are obliged to provide both a payoff letter and reinstatement information within 5-7 days of the written request.