Opinion ID: 2751916
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Foley's Continued Pursuit

Text: In the midst of the class action's resolution, Foley, presumably still unaware of the class action settlement, pressed on with HAMP, which Wells Fargo continued to tell him through November 2011 (six months after the California class action went into effect) was the only modification for which he might qualify. After numerous follow-up phone calls to Wells Fargo (which Foley started making on the heels of his April 2011 call with the bank's representatives), Foley finally received a HAMP application from the bank in November 2011--some seven months after they had promised to send it--which he promptly completed and returned. Around January 2012, Foley received a letter from Wells Fargo stating it had not received his completed application. In 2012, Foley made many additional calls to Wells Fargo's Home Preservation Specialist (and, after she left the position, her replacement) to inquire about his application status, but his calls were never returned. In an Orwellian turn of events, he instead received letters explaining his short sale or deed in lieu of foreclosure options--neither of which would actually allow Foley -6- to preserve ownership of his home.3 Meanwhile, Wells Fargo scheduled foreclosure. After several months of periodic, unreturned phone calls to the Specialist, a dissatisfied Foley spoke to the Home Preservation supervisor, who told him his HAMP application was either lost or never received, and that he would be sent a new application. Foley received the application in November or December 2012 and returned it toward the end of the year. Almost two years after Foley first asked for a modification, Wells Fargo sent him two letters around February 2013. One letter notified him that he was rejected from HAMP, and the other informed him that he would not be offered a modification (though the letter did not specify for which modifications Foley was considered) because of his excessive financial obligations. The letters, which Foley attached to his complaint, provided no further explanation for the modification denials. Wells Fargo again scheduled foreclosure. After numerous further failed attempts to discuss a loan modification with Wells Fargo, Foley sought assistance from the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office (AG's Office) around 3 Both a short sale and deed in lieu of foreclosure are alternatives to foreclosure that still require the homeowner to forego ownership of his home. In a short sale, the lender agrees to allow the borrower to sell the home for less than what he owes on the mortgage. Opting for a deed in lieu of foreclosure means the homeowner hands over his interest in the property to the bank. -7- April 8, 2013. The AG's Office contacted Wells Fargo and suggested that because of a change in Foley's financial situation,4 a new modification application might be warranted. Thereafter, the bank postponed the impending foreclosure, and Foley reapplied for HAMP. Around July 5, 2013, Foley received two letters dated June 27, 2013 denying his request for a loan modification, again due to excessive financial obligations. These letters were substantively identical to the denial letters he received in February, despite the fact that Foley demonstrated lessened hardship the second go-round. Foley called Wells Fargo to discuss the letters, and the Specialist told him he would need a monthly income of $10,000 to qualify for a modification. Foley was perplexed by this explanation because he would not have needed a loan modification were his income that high. Foley thereafter contacted the AG's Office again, informing it that Wells Fargo had not provided an explanation for his modification denials. A few days later, he received another foreclosure notice from the bank. The carousel kept spinning, and around July 15, 2013, the AG's Office yet again contacted Wells Fargo, asking the bank to provide a written explanation of Foley's modification denials and the specific names of the modifications for which he had been 4 Foley alleged that he faced lessened hardship the second time he applied for a modification, but it is not clear from the complaint exactly how his financial situation changed at that point in time. -8- denied. After a couple of days, Foley got a call from Justin Forbes, of Wells Fargo's Executive Complaint Department. Forbes explained that Foley was rejected for all loan modifications, including HAMP and the Mortgage Assistance Program. At some point that is not clear from the record, Foley became aware of his rights under the settlement agreement; armed with this knowledge, he asked Forbes specifically whether he was considered for MAP2R[,] and [] Forbes responded 'no.' Then, Forbes waffled, and [u]pon further questioning[,] [] stated [Foley] was also rejected for [MAP2R]. When Foley expressed his view that he was not afforded the procedural process under the MAP2R program, [] Forbes stated he will make inquiry to the Wells Fargo legal team. When Foley asked for a written explanation regarding the MAP2R program rejection, Forbes gave the same response about needing to consult the bank's lawyers. In a follow-up call on July 30, 2013--a year and a half after Foley first applied for a modification, and more than two years after Foley first asked to apply--Forbes told Foley he would receive detailed denial letters in a few days. Foley filed his complaint on August 1, 2013 before receiving any such letter. -9-