Consumer complaint received 12-12-2017 about Mortgage (Other type of mortgage) with Ditech Financial LLC (CA).
Issue: Incorrect information on your report

Complaint: At first, it would seemed that the respondent collection agency, Ditech Financial LLC ( Ditech ), was consistent in saying that the Substitution of Trustee and Full Reconveyance executed by XXXX XXXX, in the amount of {$75000.00}, recorded by the XXXX XXXX County Recorders Office on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, is totally different from the loan of {$87000.00} that Ditech took-over from another collection agency, Green Tree Servicing LLC ( Green Tree ), on XXXX XXXX, XXXX. However, based on Green Trees letter to the undersigned dated XXXX XXXX, XXXX, which Ditech provided me, it clearly stated that Green Tree took-over my second loan mortgage from XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) only last XXXX XXXX, XXXX and not on XXXX XXXX, XXXX as claimed. Therefore, despite all of these inconsistencies, the fact still remains that my second loan mortgage was originally {$75000.00}, but went up to {$87000.00} because of high interest rates and several add-ons, etc. In other words, both amounts pertains to only one loan which is actually my second loan mortgage which originated from XXXX XXXX. 

The contention of Ditech that I requested their assistance in the past with regards to my second loan mortgage is also true. This was because I was not sure whether my second loan mortgage was included in the approval of my HAMP Loan Modification, although I made it clear to HAMP at the onset of my application that I want this to be included so I will pay only one mortgage payment every month. I was told that this is basically the objective of the HAMP Modification Program wherein all your mortgages are lumpsum into one, to make it more affordable for homeowners who are financially in distress. I tried confirming this with Green Tree and later with Ditech, but both denied that they were paid off by my HAMP Loan Modification and neither do they know whether XXXX was actually paid-off. It was only on XXXX XXXX, XXXX when I contacted the XXXX XXXX County Recorders Office that I found-out that there was indeed a Substitution of Trustee and Full Reconveyance executed by XXXX XXXX, that was recorded on XXXX XXXX, XXXX. Upon inquiry, I was told that it was actually conveyed back to its previous Owner, XXXX XXXX XXXX. Apparently, what happened here was that my first and second loan mortgages were bundled together and were actually included in the HAMP Loan Modification that was approved. This was the reason why XXXX XXXX had to execute and record such a legal document from the XXXX XXXX County Recorders Office. The only problem here was that I was never given a copy by XXXX XXXX about this Reconveyance which explains why I was kept in the dark all these years, despite the fact that it clearly states on top of the said document thatAfter Recording Mail To : XXXX XXXX As to why I was never given a copy nor was I never informed about this Reconveyance by XXXX XXXX, AND why was this second loan mortgage in question passed on to Green Tree and later to Ditech for collection, despite the fact that this was already included in my HAMP Loan Modification, I have no clue at all. All I know is that the above facts are the actual sequence of events that transpired, based on their actual date of transactions. 

The other interesting fact to note here, which we also have to ask Ditech Financial LLC, is how come in my credit report dated XXXX XXXX, XXXX, a copy of which is hereto attached, it clearly states there that my second loan mortgage was actually : Account charged off ; {$86000.00} written off ; {$86000.00} past due as of XXXX XXXX And yet as of this writing, Ditech still wants to collect the same amount from me? Does this mean that Ditech had already reported this amount of {$86000.00} to the Internal Revenue Service ( IRS ) in their Income Tax Return and still wants to collect the same amount from me? 

Based on these compelling facts that I have presented here, I am requesting the CFPB to investigate this matter to the fullest with Ditech until we have finally resolved this case to our mutual satisfaction.

Company public response: Company believes the complaint is the result of a misunderstanding
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation