Consumer complaint received 2025-06-04 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home 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: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: IL

Complaint narrative:
This letter is submitted as a rebuttal to Wells Fargo XXXX XXXX response regarding my complaint. I respectfully disagree with their findings and wish to clarify several critical facts regarding my financial hardship, foreclosure history, and their failure to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 114 during the time they serviced my mortgage. 

XXXX. Financial Hardship and Request for Assistance In XXXX, I lost my job and my only source of income was unemployment benefits, which were significantly lower than my monthly mortgage obligation. I immediately contacted Wells Fargo Home Mortgage ( XXXX ) to request assistance or options for loss mitigation. However, the only alternatives I was offered were : Surrendering my home ( a deed-in-lieu ), or Entering into a repayment plan requiring XXXX and a half times my monthly payment for several consecutive months to " cure the default. '' Given that I was unemployed, it was entirely unrealistic to expect me to afford inflated monthly payments. I was not offered or informed of a loan modification, nor was I assessed for XXXX. It seemed evident at the time that the servicer was not acting in good faith to help me avoid foreclosure but rather to push the loan toward acceleration and default. 

XXXX. Prior Foreclosure History and Procedural Background My foreclosure action was originally filed in XXXX by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX During the proceedings, I filed a motion to strike the plaintiffs affidavit on the basis that the balance stated was incorrect. The plaintiff failed to respond, and on XX/XX/XXXX, the motion for summary judgment was withdrawn. After that, the foreclosure was effectively abandoned, and I received no communications until I was notified in or around XX/XX/XXXX that servicing had been transferred to Wells Fargo Home Mortgage. 

XXXX. Failure to Comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule XXXX At the time XXXX took over servicing in XXXX, the foreclosure matter was still pending and had not been resolved by judgment. Therefore, XXXX was legally obligated to comply with Illinois Supreme Court XXXX XXXX, which became effective XX/XX/XXXX. This rule requires that prior to any judgment of foreclosure, the servicer must : Evaluate the borrower for all available loss mitigation options ( modification, repayment plans, short sale, etc. ), File a Loss Mitigation Affidavit with the court certifying in good faith that it had made such evaluations, Do so before or at the time of seeking a judgment of foreclosure. 

XXXX never filed any such affidavit during its time as servicer between XXXX and XXXX. I was never reviewed for a modification or other alternatives. This omission constitutes a violation of XXXX XXXX, as well as a breach of its obligation to mitigate losses. 

In contrast, when XXXX XXXX XXXX took over servicing in XXXX, they promptly evaluated me for a loan modification, filed the proper affidavit, and ultimately approved a modification. This outcome illustrates that XXXX could have and should have done the same during its servicing periodbut chose not to. 

XXXX. Improper Accrual of Interest Rather than providing assistance, XXXX allowed interest to continue accruing unchecked. By the time of transfer to XXXX, the interest had ballooned by {$53000.00}. This excessive interest accumulation, which occurred during a period when the servicer failed to fulfill its legal obligation to engage in meaningful loss mitigation, represents unjust enrichment and a failure to mitigate damagesboth recognized legal doctrines.

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 explanation