Consumer complaint received 2017-05-26
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — 
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (PA)

Loan # XXXX Seeking : BoA to honor the modification I was offered in XX/XX/XXXX,  and continually assured had been fulfilled by me, and was ready to be made permanent. <P/><P/><P/>My ex and I were offered a modification, effective XX/XX/XXXX. My ex had not seen the paperwork so he called to verify that the modification was on track. He called, in front of his attorney, on XX/XX/XXXX and was told that the modification was a valid modification. <P/>In early XXXX, not sure when the XXXX payment was due, I called BoA. I was told that the payment my ex made on XX/XX/XXXX was not considered a 1st payment towards our modification because it was for more than the modification amount. I explained that he had been directed by a judge to make that payment and the judge had no idea what the number should have been. I was told the XXXX payment would be recorded as our 1st payment and I would make my second payment in XXXX. I followed this advice. <P/>In early XXXX it occurred to me that I should get some of this in writing. I called and was told by the customer service rep that the XXXX payment had not been recorded as our 1st payment. This rep allegedly fixed this. Over the next week I talked to 4 different reps. Each one stated that the XXXX payment had not been recorded as our 1st payment, then assured me they had corrected it. On XX/XX/XXXX I spent 4 hours getting in touch with the case manager assigned to our case. He reviewed my case, assured me all was well and told me he would call me each Monday to make sure we are on track. Since that time I have spoken with XXXX every Monday, each time being assured that I was doing what was necessary. <P/>XXXX also said the XXXX payment had not been recorded as our 1st payment, but assured me had fixed it. He told me the second payment was due in XXXX, the XX/XX/XXXX. After that he said it would take 30-60 days for the final paperwork granting the modification. I made a payment in XXXX and another in XXXX. I continued to speak with XXXX on a regular basis, concerned that things were not proceeding as promised. <P/>On XX/XX/XXXX I received a notice from BoA offering us a different modification. According to this notice our 1st payment was due by XX/XX/XXXX, making the process longer by 3 months. I called XXXX. He looked through my file and he assured me that I should ignore this second modification, and continue making payments on the 1st offer. He told me, quite specifically, that I was 2 payments into completing the 1st modification. When I asked him why the second offer had been mailed he said he had no idea, but he assured me, several times, that I should ignore it. He also told me he would review my case with his supervisor and, when we spoke the following Monday, he assured me that his supervisor was in agreement that I was on track and should ignore the 2nd modification. <P/>I made the 3rd payment on XX/XX/XXXX. I continued to talk to XXXX every Monday and, on the XXXX monday of XXXX he told me that XXXX XXXX should have issued the final modification letter and, since they hadnt, he would have his supervisor contact them to get the paperwork done. We talked on XX/XX/XXXX and again on the XX/XX/XXXX, each time him assuring me that the modification had been approved and we were just waiting for XXXX XXXX. <P/>On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX called me and said youre not going to like this. Turns out you have to pay on the second modification, so the trial period starts over again. I was flabbergasted. When I asked him why he said he had no idea, that this was a XXXX XXXX  issue. <P/>I talked to XXXX XXXX the following day and they told me that this was not correct. They assured me that if the terms of the modification had been changed it was done by BoA and I needed to get more information from them. On Wednesday I spoke with XXXX and asked him to explain why this had happened. He reiterated that he had no idea and he was powerless to fix it. I asked to speak with his supervisor, XXXX. XXXX said the same - no idea why this happened and I had recourse but to restart the 3 month modification period. He said there was no one above him to talk to, and there nothing would change this. He agreed to escalate the case to the escalation department but advised me that they would say the same thing he was saying. I am waiting for him to call back today but fully anticipate no resolution. <P/>Here is why this matters. Until this modification is finalized my credit is ruined. This is especially detrimental to me because I am a XXXX XXXX on XXXX, dealing with XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX. The thought that I must now start this 3 month process over again is simply unacceptable, especially in light of the fact that I was assured, by my BoA case manager that I was doing everything right and I should ignore the 2nd modification. Further, I am now fully aware that BoAs assurances that the modification will become permanent assuming I comply is a lie. There is apparently nothing to stop you from denying this second modification when I complete those 3 months of payments.

<P/>I started researching this Wednesday night and found out that this is a well known tactic BoA uses to deny modifications. I also found out that the money BoA is using to finance these modifications was granted them by the government. Further, I found out that customer service reps have been directed to do exactly what XXXX did to me, that there is a class action lawsuit against the company, and that you are doing it to everyone, not just me. <P/>I am seeking the acceptance of my original modification and the paperwork required to make it permanent. According to the Dodd-Frank act BoA is required to be transparent in its dealings with me, and you have not. What I have learned is that BoA is in direct defiance of the mandates issued by congress ; requirements that, along with a {$45.00} XXXX dollar bail out, outlined the modification process BoA was to follow. The thousands of complaints against BoA clearly demonstrate a willful intent to defraud customers, which is unacceptable.