Consumer complaint received 2026-04-28 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Other type of mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: MN

Complaint narrative:
b'This complaint references prior CFPB complaint XXXX filed XXXX and documents all developments since. \n\nI am a XXXX XXXX homeowner at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX MN XXXX, Account #XXXX, on approved medical leave with XXXX XXXX documentation through XXXX confirmed by my prescribing physician. My account is fully current as of XXXX following a XXXX 3-month arrears payment.\n\nTIMELINE OF DOCUMENTED EVENTS:XXXX: I initiated a 52-minute loss mitigation call with BOA reporting clinically certified medical hardship and requesting a 90-day medical deferment. This constitutes a formal loss mitigation application under 12 CFR 1024.41(b).XXXX While my request was actively pending, BOA issued a Notice of Intent to Accelerate a direct dual-tracking violation under 12 CFR 1024.41(g). Same day, XXXX supervisor terminated a 36-minute call when I questioned their compliance with 12 CFR 1024.41XXXX I sent formal hardship letters via fax and certified mail (Tracking XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to both BOA and XXXX During a 53-minute call, BOA Home Retention Representatives XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX explicitly advised I could seek a direct servicer override due to difficulties with the XXXX processXXXX XXXX representatives XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX verbally declined deferment and sent a non-standard checklist failing Reasonable Diligence requirements for a Veteran in medical crisis.XXXX I filed CFPB complaint XXXX: I received a voicemail from XXXX XXXX BOA Regulatory Complaints Resolution Specialist, to discuss matters at handXXXX: Acting on BOA Rep Proctors advice, I faxed a formal Direct Servicer Evaluation override request (fax confirmation attached). Same day BOAs Enterprise Resolution sent a secured email acknowledging receipt, stating: I am your point of contact until this matter is resolved. This is documented proof of BOA accepting the override request and designating XXXX as sole regulatory point of contact.XXXX After leaving voicemails, I spoke with XXXX. She confirmed: loan had not been referred to foreclosure; Notice of Intent was automatically generated due to delinquency status; deferral assistance depends on investor guidelines; follow-up call scheduled XXXX aXXXX XXXX CT. BOAs own recap of this call is attached. Notably BOAs internal response deadline was stated as XXXX XXXX XXXX yet the XXXX XXXX deadline was XXXX XXXX XXXX, creating a deliberate timeline conflict. A loan assistance package was also sent via XXXX Next Day Air on this date. I retrieved a XXXX package with return receipt around this period however due to the package leading with home loss options rather than retention options I did not immediately identify it as the formal loan review package. I am noting this transparently for the recordXXXX MN Attorney General XXXX XXXX office formally contacted BOAs designated contact XXXX XXXX at XXXX under File No. XXXX demanding written response within 10 business days approximately XXXX XXXX XXXX Follow-up call with XXXX at XXXX CT. She confirmed: account current with XXXX XXXX as next payment due; no foreclosure referral; she would remain my regulatory point of contact. Loss mitigation team communicated: no medical deferments will be approved. My written recap sent same day to XXXX is attachedXXXX XXXX issued a written recap containing five material problems: (1) States BOA cannot override XXXX decision legally inaccurate, XXXX is a third-party intermediary with no authority to supersede federal borrower rights under 12 CFR 1024.41 or VA loan servicing guidelines; (2) XXXX mention of the documented dual-tracking violation under 12 CFR 1024.41(g) despite being formally raised in writing; (3) Investor identity withheld until final response which transmits simultaneously to me, CFPB, and AG preventing me from asserting investor-specific rights before it becomes official record; (4) No confirmation Veteran or SCRA protections were evaluated despite formal written notice in multiple communications; (5) States she will send no more recaps while final response is imminent.\n\nADDITIONAL CONCERN: I have recently received a second Notice of Intent to Accelerate letter (note the different letter codes in the attached documents from first & second intent letters) despite my account being fully current as of XXXX and XXXX written confirmation that no foreclosure referral has been made. This requires immediate investigation.\n\nPATTERN OF CONDUCT: BOAs own rep advised override was possible on XXXX BOA then claimed override is impossible on XXXX Investor identity withheld strategically until final regulatory response. Dual tracking violation omitted from all written communications. XXXX XXXX internal deadline conflicts with XXXX XXXX AG deadline. A second acceleration notice issued after account was confirmed current. These collectively describe a servicer managing toward a predetermined denial while maintaining appearance of good-faith review for regulatory purposesXXXX XXXX case XXXX active with response deadline approximately XXXX Documents attached: fax confirmation XXXX, BOA acknowledgment email XXXX BOA recaps of XXXX and XXXX calls, my written recap of XXXX call, XXXX XXXX recap.'

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 non-monetary relief