Consumer complaint received 2016-02-23 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — FHA mortgage
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure — 
Company: Ditech Financial LLC
State: NV

Complaint narrative:
The mortgage servicing company my mother has ( DiTech Financial formally GreenTree Servicing ) has participated in deceptive practices and fraudulent activity in their attempt to foreclose on her home. My mother and late father were never late in making payments. After my father 's untimely death in late XXXX, problems began to arise, as his estate was held up in probate. My mother began to fall delinquent in the mortgage payments, as monies were tied up. GreenTree ( as DiTech was known at the time ) offered a streamlined loan modification, which my mother was paying faithfully until her daughter ( who was authorized to negotiate on her behalf with GreenTree ) received something in the mail stating a different payment amount. My sister called and wanted verification on which amount to send prior to making the last payment. The representative at the time did n't know and said she would get back to my sister. She never did. My sister called every day for nearly two weeks, then every other day. She finally spoke with someone who gave my sister the correct amount, something the representative found the answer to within XXXX minutes. The streamlined option was removed due to non-compliance ; however, when my sister explained the situation, it was conditionally reinstated. Not trusting DiTech ( at that time, they changed their name due to GreenTree being sued for XXXX ), my mother wanted the document in writing. They refused, saying the agreement was " notated in their system ''. 

Even though a declination letter was never sent from DiTech, my mother assumed the streamlined option was off the table. Immediate she inquired about the standard loan modification. We went back and forth with DiTech for months, re-sending them the same information over and over. Every time my sister would call someone, she was met with rudeness and attitude. Most of the time they would simply hang up in her face. 

We later discovered DiTech initiate foreclosure proceedings in XXXX of last year, despite the fact my mother was in the middle of the loan modification process. Dual-tracking is not permissible by law, yet when my sister asked the DiTech representative why the foreclosure proceedings were not held ; the representative informed her it would n't be. We have documentation sent by DiTech explicitly stating the fact that the foreclosure proceedings would be placed in suspense during the loan modification process. It never was. In addition, even though my mother was able to make the payments ( since probate ended a few weeks before DiTech started foreclosure proceedings ), she was informed by DiTech representatives not to make any payments during the loan modification process. We have documentation supporting that fact as well. 

DiTech never had any intention of helping my mother. They delayed repeatedly, continuing to ask for information just to stall. My mother 's home has significant equity in it ; this is what they want. Their sinister ways was on display yet again, when my sister received a mailing from them, using bulk mail to avoid detecting when the mail was sent out. The document was dated XXXX XXXX, XXXX ; within the 30-day time frame to attempt to get something done. This is their way of showing good-faith before attempting to foreclosure on the home. Unfortunately for them, I know how bulk mailing works and was able to determine the letter was actually sent on the XXXX, less than 30 days from the trustee sale. 

The document sent to my sister was boilerplate, as it had no name attached to it except within the body. My sister called the number and it rang invalid. I visited the website and all pertinent information associated with this loan was unavailable. They are purposely avoiding any form of negotiation in the attempt to foreclose on the home. It will not work if I can help it. I would like to sue DiTech to oblivion.

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