Consumer complaint received 2016-08-17 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional fixed mortgage
Issue: Settlement process and costs — 
Company: Ditech Financial LLC
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I filed complaints against former servicer, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX/XXXX/XXXX & all these complaints have been withdrawn due to XXXX being fined & removed as mortgage servicer. We were transferred ( assigned ) to Ditech, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( formerly known as Greentree Mortgage ) as of XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. Attached is the " Notice of Servicing Transfer '' dated XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. We submitted all documents requested for a " Temporary Loan Modification '' & were approved for an in-house modification through Ditech 's Loss Mitigation Dept. The Trial Modification is dated XXXX/XXXX/XXXX ( see attached ). We complied with the conditions of the loan modification & began making payments of {$1100.00} starting prior to each of the 4 months we were told to pay : XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, XXXX/XXXX/XXXX and XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. We received Ditech 's " Permanent Modification '' dated XXXX/XXXX/XXXX on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX by XXXX XXXX. The Permanent Modification differs dramatically from the Temporary Modification ( enclosed is the Trial & Permanent Modification for your review. On XXXX/XXXX/XXXX I spoke with XXXX at ext. XXXX, a customer rep who told me that Ditech is modifying the modification terms of our loan " authorized by XXXX XXXX XXXX. '' Since XXXX/XXXX/XXXX we have had at least XXXX different Single Point of Contacts ( SPOC ) - See attached Phone calls to Ditech containing SPOCs listed on our phone logs. The names of our SPOCs were : XXXX XXXX ext. XXXX, XXXX XXXX ext. XXXX, XXXX, ext. XXXX. On every call to our SPOCs, if they were not available, I spoke with a customer rep. If no customer rep was available, I left messages for the SPOC at the time of the call, however, NO SPOC EVER RETURNED MY CALLS! 
Once we reviewed Ditech 's Permanent Modification, some of the issues we have are as follows : The assignment from XXXX Bank ( original pretender lender ) to XXXX XXXX is clearly fabricated : while dated XXXX XXXX, XXXX, it refers to an entity, as assignor, which was formed in XXXX, and so the document was prepared & record XXXX/XXXX/XXXX ( XXXX years after we refinanced our home to lower the fixed-rate from XXXX to 6 % interest. 
This document may well qualify as a forged document, or be otherwise void under XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
The language cited in XXXX. and XXXX, together the identification of the lender as Ditech, may constitute an assignment in and of itself. 
I believe that, but would confirm, that the problems with the assignment may be cured with a proper endorsement under the XXXX, because the security interest follows the debt in California. 
There are questions about the validity of the allonges -- they appear to be inconsistent and to be " tada '' allonges ( magically appearing after the dispute has arisen ) -- which arise from issues involving the collateral file. 
Ditech is not going to agree to a loan under which its right to foreclose is questionable, so the issue is how much the deferred principal would be reduced in exchange for solving Ditech 's problems. 
Under XXXX XXXX, XXXX and XXXX are agreeing that the {$490000.00} balance is correct -- they have not waived the improper drive-by fees of {$9200.00} to prove we live in our home which we do. There is no Transparency Statement. They list a balloon payment on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, as {$170000.00}. But the real balloon payment is {$420000.00} ( {$170000.00} + {$240000.00} ), because the deferred half of the principal is also due. The document lacks an integration clause meaning the agreement can be supplemented by additional terms. 
On Pg. XXXX " Permanent Modification '' Sec. XXXX. disputes XXXX. Since XXXX/XXXX/XXXX all customer reps say, " I am ca n't speak about your account as you are in litigation. '' When I say we are not in litigation, they refuse to accept this. When I ask for a FAX or phone to call Loss Mitigation to resolve issues, the numbers are not valid. We thwarted in attempts for help.

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