Consumer complaint received 05-09-2016 about Mortgage (Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)) with WELLS FARGO & COMPANY (VA).
Issue: Application, originator, mortgage broker

Complaint: A request for review and immediate assistance in the resolution, ( as filed with the Circuit Court of The County of XXXX, Virginia ) Wells Fargo Bank , NA XXXX f/k/a XXXX, as successor in interest to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, as Trustee for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series XXXX, et al. XXXX XXXX, Trustee ) of this issue. 
My concern is that the above parties have not addressed the loan and its origination in XX/XX/XXXX. The original refinance included both XXXX and XXXX XXXX as noted in the attached documents. When this was declined due to interest rate by the XXXX 's, the mortgage company offered a " better rate '', but this time did not include XXXX on the contract. Instead they used my income alone, which at the time was approximately {$33000.00}. This income in no way qualified me for such a high mortgage, but the approval was granted, which is also noted in the attached documents. 
I strongly believe that this loan was predatory in nature and during the life of this loan and the multiple opportunities by the banks and financial institutions who bought and sold this loan, there was no due diligence. XXXX 's name could have been added during the review and approval process. The attempt by the parties listed above to add XXXX 's name to the deed of trust at a later date in order to foreclose on the property and not to correct their error of the past is in question. And, until XX/XX/XXXX when XXXX XXXX lost his job and the payments could not be met, neither the original mortgage companies, banks, trustees, etc. thought to review the documents for accuracy. 
Document review is part of the process and could result in some errors or omissions, but the fact that I did not qualify would have been glaring throughout the process. Financial institutions ensure that the consumer has signed all required documents and all errors are corrected, why was this omission noted as an oversite, accept when the plaintiffs wanted to foreclose? 
A request was made for mortgage assistance/modification and was denied with a letter dated XXXX XXXX, XXXX, noting that " the approval must come from the investor that owns the mortgage and this has been declined. '' A letter to the XXXX 's dated XXXX XXXX, XXXX notes regarding " fairly common practice '' and possible payment to the XXXX 's to have XXXX sign a correct deed of trust, is this proper? 
Please also note that I personally have not been officially contacted regarding the sale of the property, as my name is the only XXXX on the mortgage and the deed of trust. The sale is scheduled for XXXX XXXX, XXXX. I am not residing at the residence due to pending divorce, but XXXX is in the home. Change of address is on file with the attorney representing the plaintiffs and is duly noted by the attached envelopes, and previous phone calls made to my cell phone during past court proceedings. I should have been directly notified of the actions, I found out via a call from XXXX XXXX.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation