Consumer complaint received 2017-02-07 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional fixed mortgage
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure — 
Company: PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
We represent the borrower XXXX XXXX in his foreclosure case and loan modification. My client became unemployed and applied for the Hardest Hit Funds and was approved on XX/XX/XXXX for those funds and the lender accepted those funds even though it was not enough to reinstate the loan. Lender was emailing our office for the status of those funds every week. Since XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX the case processor at Primary Residential Mortgage has persistently emailed our office after having received those funds from HHF for the client to give a down payment to put toward the mortgage and kept pressuring the client to submit a loan modification application or they would be placed back in foreclosure when in fact my client was already in foreclosure with an active case in XXXX XXXX County Clerk of Court. Furthermore, her emails stated that because my client had not paid the mortgage since XX/XX/XXXX that he should have money saved to put towards a down payment when in fact they knew my client had lost his job at XXXX and had a hardship othewrise he would have never qualified for the HHF. XXXX from Primary Residential Mortgage sent me the application to apply for a review of a loan modification and she has persistently harassed me every week asking when are we submitting the application and threatening that they were going to put my client in foreclosure if we did not submit a complete application when in fact my client was already in foreclosure and they never took him out of foreclosure even though they received the HHF funds. The HHF representative had advised my client that his account was paid though XX/XX/XXXX and therefore, he did not have to apply for a modification at this time. I explained to the representative that for this reason my client had not submitted an application.XXXX confirmed that he was paid through XXXX however, there was still a shortage which I never understood why did they accept the funds if it was not enough to cover the reinstatement and get the account current. Again emails weekly threatening with proceeding with the foreclosure even after I explained I was trying to get the package ready to submit. Finally, I was given a deadline to submit a completed package by XX/XX/XXXX however, on XX/XX/XXXX I asked for an extension until XX/XX/XXXX because my client was waiting on his accountant to finish his Profit and Loss that the bank requested. XXXX said no that I had to submit or they would resume foreclosure when again he 's been in foreclosure all along. It was then that I replied that if they could not wait for me to submit a complete package to proceed how they see fit. On XX/XX/XXXX I submitted the complete package but then I received an email from XXXX XXXX advising the package is incomplete because they need a copy of my client 's drivers license, documentation why he defaulted XX/XX/XXXX and 6 months of business bank statements. I replied on XX/XX/XXXX advising I provided a hardship letter stating why client defaulted, a letter stating client does not have a corporation therefore, he only has a checking however, I received the following reply " The letter specifically requests " documentation '' of the reason for the default. A letter describing the reason for default will not suffice. Is the borrower refusing to provide supporting documentation? '' XXXX XXXX | Special Servicing Supervisor Primary Residential Mortgage, Inc. 

At this time I realized that we had a problem and the lender was not being receptive to working with the borrower. I finally understood that they were not willing to work with the borrower when they sent me a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX stating they were returning {$2600.00} received from the Florida Hardest Hit as it did not cover the total amount due when they had agreed that account was paid through XX/XX/XXXX.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation