Consumer complaint received 2017-06-20
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — 
Company: Onity Group Inc. (ME)

We are in the process of losing our home to the combined swindles of our house insurance ( XXXX XXXX ) and our mortgage bank ( XXXXXXXX XXXX,  servicer Ocwen. Our immediate situation is that the house is posted for foreclosure auction to be held this Friday XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX. We are submitting this complaint to add our case to those you have studied for the CFPB suit currently served against Ocwen, and of course to see if the existence of that suit can offer any relief against the impending foreclosure. In addition to the systemic misbehaviors of Ocwen described in the CFPB complaint -- which have shown up in our house 's case too -- our particular mortgage contains multiple fatal defects in its chain of custody, described in the attached document Mortgage Defects and summarized at the bottom of this description. The history of our loss is described more fully in the attached document Overview. We are a family of XXXX, with XXXX XXXX born in XX/XX/XXXX. We own a house where we lived until the end of XX/XX/XXXX, in XXXX, Massachusetts. In outline, the history is as follows. ( Since the web site interface appears to jam my paragraphs together, I have supplied some section headers in all-caps : ) DAMAGE TO HOUSE ; RENEGED INSURANCE : > > In XX/XX/XXXX the house suffered a heating-system freeze which ruptured pipes many places and produced a catastrophic hot-water flood when the pipes thawed and the boiler resumed operation. We were away but learned of the accident and contacted our insurance adjuster, who assured us that the house would be properly dried out. This was not done and consequently all its walls filled with mold. > > The insurer initially declined even to have the house tested for mold. Finally when pressed, in XX/XX/XXXX, the insurer sent a hygienist to test the house, but this hygienist chosen by the insurer diagnosed only a tiny fraction of the contamination. > > when the true extent of the mold was discovered in XX/XX/XXXX, the insurer reneged on paying any realistic repair cost. We took the insurer to arbitration in XX/XX/XXXX, but the arbitration process in our state is toothless and we were awarded only a fraction of the funds needed for rebuilding.
BAIT-AND-SWITCH OF MORTGAGE : > > meanwhile in XX/XX/XXXX we had sought a small second mortgage. We were then baited and switched by the lender into refinancing our entire mortgage with this lender, who ( through a front ) was Option One, who later settled in a class-action suit for predatory lending, brought by the Attorney General of Massachusetts. FAILURE OF MORTGAGE SERVICER TO REIMBURSE ESCROWED FUNDS : > > What funds we were awarded from the insurance arbitration ( in spring of XX/XX/XXXX ) were placed in escrow with the mortgage servicer of the lender whose behavior I have described above. Our attempts to get them disbursed when we present bona fide invoices has been met with a range of intransigence and incompetence starting with a business model that refuses to establish a single knowledgeable point of contact, and then including conflicting instructions, rules invoked that do not apply, nonsense written into our file, and notices predicated on years-old status of the file all resulting in failure to reimburse our invoices or even acknowledge receipt of them and finally in two extensive memos of outright prevarication, in response to two successive requests by the Massachusetts Attorney General for an explanation of why our invoices have not been reimbursed. These memos, annotated for their inaccuracies, are attached as Annotated Ocwen escrow response # 1 and Annotated Ocwen escrow response # 2. The respective original PDF response from Ocwen is appended to each file. DEFECTS IN CUSTODY CHAIN OF MORTGAGE : > > After Option One was  closed in XX/XX/XXXX by the State of California for failure to file audits and reports, our mortgage was purportedly assigned in XX/XX/XXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, whose trustee is XXXX XXXX  However : > The closing date for assets to be placed in this trust was in XX/XX/XXXX ; > In XX/XX/XXXX the CEO of the prior claimant ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, successor to Option One ) had sworn that his company no longer held any residential mortgages ; > The purported assignment was not done from the sole authorized depositor to place assets in the trust, but was done simply in the name of XXXX XXXX ; > On the purported Assignment document produced at robo-signer XXXX XXXX in XXXX, Georgia the persons signing as purported officers of XXXX XXXX are actually known robo-signers who are simply employees of XXXX. These defects are described more fully in the attached file Mortgage Defects.