Bank of America is in violation of the RESPA guidelines under category 1, 7, 9 and 10.

Under category 1, the Bank created the problem by not presenting XXXX payment by automatic draft. The reason it gave initially was that it was by law, changed later to " it is the bank 's guideline '', to finally it is updating its ACH processing. Upon receipt of a default notice and intention to accelerate in late XXXX, I went to the XXXX branch to make the two months payment which were available in the checking account. It refused, and instructed the XXXX branch manager not to accept any payment from any unauthorized third party. It had received the documents I submitted establishing me as the successor trustee. It took the Bank more than four months to accept those documents and establish me as an authorized person to contact. I offered to resume payments beginning XX/XX/XXXX, and begin paying down the unpaid principal and interest. Again, it refused. 

Under category 7, the bank kept on changing the options available to me for loss mitigation. First, I was told that I can qualify for loan assumption if I, the successor trustee, become the borrower, not the trust. That was turned down. Then, I was offered short sale agreement that would give me 45 to 120 days to market the property. When I asked for the short sale agreement document that I can sign my name on, I was told that it was not an option because the appraised value of the property is more than the outstanding principal balance. Then it said that the options left available are reinstatement which required putting up more than $ 15K, or foreclosure. Clearly, the bank just wants to foreclose on the property. It sees to benefit more by foreclosing on the property, then keeping it under its REO department. That way, it collects the {$1200.00} rent from a good paying tenant which is more than the $ 1100 monthly payment for principal, interest, insurance and real estate taxes.

Under category 9, the bank did not do its due diligence review of the loan assumption/loan mitigation application. It has already made the decision to deny the application based on the reason that it is an investment property. THE BANK REFINANCED THIS LOAN ON XXXX AS AN INVESTMENT PROPERTY. I also submitted the lease it requested as a supporting documentation. In its letter of XX/XX/XXXX, it said that it has received the application, but I have not submitted the package until the next day, XX/XX/XXXX. Then, it sent another letter on XX/XX/XXXX saying that it is concluding its review of the application when the loan assumption/loan modification units of the bank has already turned down the application on XX/XX/XXXX. I believe that the bank is gaming the system. It has established first a sale date, then sent me letters to conform to deadlines in its responses. The XX/XX/XXXX letter is five days from the XX/XX/XXXX letter. The XX/XX/XXXX denial of the application is 30 days from the sale date. The XX/XX/XXXX decision was arrived in indecent haste because it was the same day that it confirmed receipt of the application. The is clearly trying to make it look like it is complying with the guidelines of RESPA and other applicable laws. 
Under category 10, and closely related to category 9, the  bank has already established a sale date of XX/XX/XXXX even before it has received the application for loan assumption/loan modification. It never reviewed the application. Instead, it has made its decision to foreclose on the property. 
Through all this discussion, I have concluded that the Bank is dealing in bad faith and is engaged in unfair business practices.