Consumer complaint received 2022-08-24
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — 
Company: U.S. BANCORP (MN)

Explanation of Circumstances : A conditional approval of the Deed-in-Lieu of Foreclosure, dated XXXX, was mailed to the Complainants ( see attached ). Per the conditional approval letter, a property inspection was conducted by a vendor of the U.S. Bank on or about XX/XX/XXXX Subsequent to the inspection, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on behalf of the U.S. Bank, filed a claim for damages with the XXXX XXXX XXXX, claiming damages to the dwelling and structure including but not limited to water damage to ceilings, walls and floorings due to burst pipes ( see attached ). 

Inspection of the subject property by the Claimants General Contractor revealed no damage of the type stated in XXXX claim. Photographs of the propertys interior taken by the Claimants General Contractor were shared with XXXX XXXX of XXXX ( see attached email exchange ). 
A letter to the Claimants from U. S. Bank, dated XXXX, stated the request for an alternative foreclosure option has been declined for the following reason : the subject property is not in an acceptable condition per program guidelines ( see attached ). 

On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX sent a letter to XXXX XXXX XXXX, denying the insurance claim based on evidence from the Claimants General Contractor and stating, the walls were not wet and only some minor wear and tear ( see attached ) On XX/XX/XXXX, the Claimant sent a letter to the U.S. Bank disputing the vendor-inspectors characterization of damages at the subject property, referencing the Claimants own inspection, the denial of the XXXX insurance claim, and requesting that the Deed-in-Lieu of Foreclosure file be reopened. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, the Claimants received a letter from U.S. Bank dated XXXX, stating that the bank had found no errors in its decision to decline approval of the Deed-in-Lieu of Foreclosure. The letter also states that while the insurance claim was denied, per the inspection, there was evidence of water damage and neglect of the property. The letter further states that, we have enclosed documents and information to determine that no error has occurred ( see attached ). 

The aforementioned documents and information were not included with the letter dated XX/XX/XXXX. The Claimants have requested copies of those documents ( see attached ). 

Other pertinent information : 1. Since the inspection report on or about XXXX, has been referenced numerous times as the basis for the denial of the Deed-in-Lieu of Foreclosure, Claimants have attempted to obtain a copy of the report. An email from the U.S. Bank stating that such reports will only be released under court order ( see attached ) 2. In a discussion with XXXX XXXX about the inspection report, he stated the following : : The inspector, XXXX XXXX, has been working as an agent reporting on the subject property since XXXX. 
: The report is a series of check boxes as to the propertys condition. 
: That the report lacks any specificity as to the condition. 
: The report does note water damage, mold and fascia damage, however is not specific as to where the damage exists or the extent of damages. 
: In his experience, agents such as XXXX, note every possible flaw related to the subject property, in an effort to secure work orders to repair the damages. 
: In his experience related to vacant properties, the subject property is in excellent condition and some of the best he has ever seen. 
3. The Claimants have been involved in numerous Loss Mitigation programs with the U.S. Bank over the past three years, including Short Sale. Due to market conditions, varying appraisal amounts and decisions such as the most recent by the Bank, none of those have been successful. The subject property is now at risk of foreclosure. The foreclosure is active ( see attached email ).