Consumer complaint received 2021-08-01 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Reverse mortgage
Issue: Closing on a mortgage — 
Company: Mr. Cooper Group Inc.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
Champion Mortgage was assigned a reverse mortgage that falls far short of the requirements mandated by Sec. 50 Art. XVI of the Tex. Const. following you will find some of the constitutional, regulatory, state/federal statue violations that were committed before and during the loan origination and the violations continue todate. The lender has been put on notice of these violations and were granted the 60 day timeframe in order to correct/cure said violations. 

More troubling is the lenders legal counsel who has and continues to provide questionable -if not out right illegal activity - in order to protect the lenders unprotectable position. Understand, we are not accusing Champion Mortgage of the fraud that was committed prior to and during the closing of said HECM loan - but - we do allege misconduct by the lender with respect to the servicing of said reverse mortgage.

Following you will find our family 's " independent lawsuit '' filed after the lender filed their 2nd RULE 736 non-judicial expedited ( wrongful ) foreclosure. Though, filed is not the correct definition for what this law firm did. A more accurate definition would be ambushed rather than filed. Before we present the independent lawsuit for your perusal - please allow this estate to outline the procedures used against our family on the XXXX and XXXX foreclosure attempts. 

Each allegation/mis-representation - can be proven - and has been previously sworn under penalty of perjury - in Judge XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Judicial District Court located in XXXX, Texas. The two wrongful RULE 736 non-judicial foreclosures were attempted in XXXX and XXXX. 

The first attempted ( wrongful ) foreclosure started properly by submitting the required TRCP 736 Application. This TRCP Application was filed in the District Clerk of Court on XX/XX/XXXX ( three ( 3 ) days after XXXX ) at XXXX XXXX. 

The last remaining borrower, XXXX XXXX XXXX died on XX/XX/XXXX. The lender was promptly notified of the death and a letter of intent to purchase the homestead via a short sale was submitted to the lender and was acknowledged by the lender in writing. 

The lender for two ( 2 ) years avoided any good faith effort to move forward with the sale of the property. The lender retained HUD appraisers on 3 occasins to produce a valuation of the property. Each appraisal was charged to the estate 's account - but refused to provide copies of any of the Appraisals. 

As the estate continued to work with USDA in anticipation of buying the home. The estate was " ambushed '' 3 days after XXXX with the RULE 736 foreclosure attempt. The foreclosure was not for the death of the last borrower but rather for hazard insurance premiums. The total alleged debt owed to the lender was {$3400.00}. However, the lender was in possession of {$10.00}, XXXX. These monies were paid by the insrance carrier due to the passing of two tropical storms. In fact, The estate made repairs to the property with personal savings and assigned the insurance proceeds to pay taxes and insurance. 

The lender after inspecting the home and receiving a report stating the home was 80 % repaired attempted to foreclose the newly renovated home with the intention of keeping the insurance settlement proceeds also. This lender has a reputation of doing this all over the country. For proof simply go to the BBB and CFPB 's complaint web site and view the hundreds of this exact business operation. 

With respect to the decedent, XXXX XXXX, he was allegedly served by 1st class and certified mail. 

In fact, the TRCP 736 foreclosure application should never have been filed in the XXXX Judicial Court but rather in the XXXX Probate court in front of Judge XXXX XXXX. 

The second ( 2nd ) foreclosure attempt falls even farther from the critical path created by the Texas Supreme Courts Foreclosure Task Force. 

The XXXX 2nd foreclosure filed as CAUSE No. XXXX was never properly filed with a TRCP 736 Application. The lender simply mailed NOTICE OF DEFAULT, NOTICE OF ACCELARATION, NOTICE OF TRUSTEE SALE. The reverse mortgage lender guided by their legal counsel simply noticed a dead decedent, XXXX XXXX XXXX and swore ( fraudulent ) affidavits out to the court that notices were served upon the parties. 

In other words, the lender followed the TASK FORCES rules except for one rule. The one rule ignored was the requirement of filing a TRCP 736 application in the XXXX County Probate Court.

Had a TRCP 736 foreclosure application been filed properly by the lender the following CAUSE NO. XXXX would have been generated by the submission of the TRCP XXXX application. 

However, the CAUSE NO. was generated by the XXXX XXXX filing of an independent lawsuit in order to abate /challenge the RULE 736 expedited foreclosure and was not generated by the filing of the lenders TRCP 736 application. The 2nd foreclosure attempt was especially concerning for the following reason ( s ) : ( i ) Unlike the 1st RULE 736 foreclosure attempt, the 2nd RULE 736 foreclosure attempt was a deliberate attempt to avoid the FORECLOSURE TASK FORCES developed procedure to foreclose on home equity loans. 
( ii ) If not for the dedicated ladies in the XXXX District and County Clerk of Courts - my family would be homeless. NEITHER CLERKS OFFICE PROVIDED ANY LEGAL GUIDANCE/OPINION whatsoever. However, they did provide the following : ( a ) On Wednesday, XX/XX/XXXX, a friend at the county clerk office informed me that my property was scheduled to be sold on the court house steps on Tuesday XX/XX/XXXX. 
( b ) On Thursday, XX/XX/XXXX, I spoke to both Clerk of Courts. In particular, the district clerk of court - who assured me no filings for a TRCP 736 APPLICATION FOR AN EXPEDITED ORDER UNDER RULE 736 ON A REVERSE MORTGAGE LOAN had been filed. Unlike the 1st foreclosure attempt. 
( c ) Because XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX a Texas Limited Liability Partnership, specializing in foreclosure litigation - failed to file an APPLICATION FOR AN EXPEDITED ORDER UNDER RULE 736 ON A REVERSE MORTGAGE LOAN. The Estate wasted numerous hours of both the District and County Clerks time and one must wonder if this error was a clerical oversite or an intentional act ( d ) The only notices served upon this family was to XXXX XXXX XXXX who was still dead but alive enough to accept service. XXXX XXXX was dead for over five ( 5 ) years when he accepted this foreclosure notice.

( e ) Further research revealed that any lawsuit to abate/object to - the XX/XX/XXXX RULE 736 foreclosure - must be filed BEFORE the Monday before the date of foreclosure sale. 
( f ) XX/XX/XXXX scheduled date of foreclosure sale -was a Tuesday. XX/XX/XXXX was obviously a Monday BUT was also a federal holiday XXXX XXXX. 
XXXX g XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX had planned to close early on XX/XX/XXXX in order to gain a well-deserved long ( er ) weekend. Seeing my families plight this army of ladies agreed to volunteer to stay open in order for my family to file an independent lawsuit in order to challenge the errors and abate the oncoming foreclosure ( wrongful ).

( h ) Once again, the lenders law firm uses foreclosure date of sale tactics that hinder the borrower from finding competent counsel byway of filing foreclosure on/before holidays. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX : CAUSE No. XXXX. ) XXXX XXXX XXXX, Pro Se ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff ) v. ) PRECINCT XXXX Nationstar d.b.a. ) XXXX COUNTY, TEXAS Champion Mortgage ) Defendant ) .... ) In re 1st AMENDED - ORDER FOR ABATEMENT/DISMISSAL CONCERNING PLAINTIFFs/PLAINTIFFs ESTATE REGARDING RULE 736 NON-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE & COMPLAINS SEEKS RELIEF for the following 1. BREACH of CONTRACT 2. BREACH of IMPLIED CONVENANT of GOOD FAITH and FAIR DEALING 3. NEGLIGENCE 4. FRAUD 5. MOTION - DISMISS RULE 735 NON-JUDICIAL FORECLOSUE 6. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 7. UNJUST ENRICHMENT 8. QUANTUM MERUIT 9. DECLATORY JUDGEMENT 10. DTPA VIOLATION ( s ) Mortgagor : XXXX XXXX Estate Plaintiff -`Estate Representative : XXXX, XXXX Address XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX , City , State & Zip : XXXX, Texas XXXX Telephone # XXXX E-Mail : XXXX -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - Lender Name : Champion Mortgage Lender Loan # : XXXX Loan Description : Reverse Mortgage Insurance XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Insured XXXX Name : Champion Mortgage ( XXXX ) Insurance Policy # : XXXX - Hurricane Harvey Insurance Claim # : XXXX Inception Date : XX/XX/XXXX Expiration Date : XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Plaintiff ), Administrator for the Estate of XXXX XXXX files the following COMPLAINT and asserts NATIONSTAR d.b.a. CHAMPION MORTGAGE ( Defendant ) has violated and continues to violate both state and federal statutes. 
Plaintiff apologizes to this court for not being represented by counsel. Due to the expediated nature of this monetary RULE 736 Foreclosure Plaintiff was unable to secure counsel on such short notice. Plaintiff contacted four prominent local law firms only to be refused due to their conflicting schedules.

Rest assured we will be actively pursuing counsel should the parties not be able to resolve the differences without litigation ( The law has always favored the resolution of controversies through compromise and settlement rather than through litigation and it has always been the policy of the law to uphold and enforce such contracts if they are fairly made and are not in contravention of some law or public policy. Hernandez v. Telles, 663 S.W.2d 91, 93 ( Tex .

App.El Paso 1983, no writ ). Agreements should be encouraged, particularly early in litigation, to open the door to communication and, hopefully, compromise. 
The Plaintiff stands ready to compromise. Plaintiffs main objective is to continue the purchase of the estates home through the short sale process that is currently in effect and to be re-imbursed according to the agreement made with Defendants Loss Draft representative, Ms. XXXX XXXX XXXX At issue is a monetary non-judicial RULE 736 foreclosure. The property located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Texas XXXX is set to be sold on XX/XX/XXXX. 
BACKGROUND to Monetary Non-Judicial RULE 736 Expeditated Foreclosure : I. RULE 736.5 ( b ) DUE DATE .is due the first Monday after the expiration of 38 days from citation. : Respondent received citation on XX/XX/XXXX - stating foreclosure sale was scheduled XX/XX/XXXX. 
The property subject to the alleged lien is homesteaded and located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Texas XXXX. 
Respondent denies a monetary DEFAULT occurred. 
Respondent denies a monetary Default - was due as of XX/XX/XXXX in the amount of {$4900.00}. ( see Defendants NOTICE OF DEFAULT. Defendant has refused to provide exact calculation breakdown of the alleged {$4900.00} DEFAULT amount ( see Plaintiffs QWR stating disagreement and demand for documentation on {$4900.00} alleged DEFAULT ).

. II. RULE 736.5 ( c ) FORM .. signed in accordance with Rule 57..and may be in a general denial under Rule 92 : Respondent acknowledges Rule 92 ge
neral denial and if a denial is not warranted, Respondent will likely have evidentiary support at the hearing.

III. RULE 736.5 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( 5 ) ( c ) ( 1 ) reason respondent believes a respondent ( borrower ) did not sign a loan agreement document : ( i ) XXXX XXXX XXXX ( borrower ) was diagnosed with XXXX by the VA XXXX  " located in XXXX, Texas. 
( ii ) On XX/XX/XXXX, borrower allegedly executed ( without his legal guardian being present ) a reverse Note and Home Equity Conversion Mortgage ( HECM ) with XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) - who immediately sold this property lien to XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), dba Champion Mortgage ( CM ).

( iii ) The alleged signature is a forgery and was notarized by an out of town notary without any state issued ID from the alleged applicant. This notary would not have been able to declare under perjury of law that she knew the applicant personally. Therefore, the notarization of alleged applicant was unlawful.

( iv ) Before a HECM applicant can sign a reverse mortgage, HUD requires counseling of the applicant. Without this counseling session no reverse mortgage adhesion contract/agreement can even go forward.

Respondent requested a copy of this mandatory HUD counseling certificate byway of a - Qualified Written Request QWR. This QWR is governed under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA ) 12 U.S.C. 2605 ( e ).
This QWR was received and acknowledged by petitioners debt collector/current foreclosure counsel.

( c ) ( 2 ). The reason Respondent is not obligated for payment of the lien : ( i ) Article XVI of the Texas Constitution invalidates any lien when the borrower was legally incapacitated.
( ii ) Article XVI of the Texas Constitution invalidates any lien when borrower never received the mandatory HUD ( c ) ( 3 ). Why are the payoff amounts materially incorrect?.

( i ) Defendants Loss Draft Department received approximately {$14000.00} for Hurricane Harvey damage to the Plaintiffs property.

( ii ) Respondent noticed petitioner/Champion Mortgage Loss Draft Department approximately 20 times in writing that repairs made were available for inspection and re-imbursement repairs were being demanded.

( iii ) Defendant acknowledges having care, custody and control of Plaintiffs $ XXXX in the respondents escrow/suspense/unapplied funds account.

12 C.F.R. 1024.2 states disclosure of the total amount of funds held in such suspense or unapplied funds account on the periodic statement is mandatory. Petitioner failed to do so and continues this breach. This law goes on to state under Paragraph 38 ( i ) ( 1 ) ( x ) 1. ADDITIONAL ADJUSTMENT
S.

Examples of Items for which adjustments may be made include taxes and Flood or Hazard insurance premiums, if the consumer is being substitute
d as an insured under the same policy.

Before filing a non-judicial foreclosure - Defendant was required per - RULE 736.1 ( d ) ( 3 ) ( G ) to have undertaken and BEFORE the application was filed, any other action required under ( 1 ) applicable law and the loan agreement, ( 2 ) contract or ( 3 ) lien sought to be foreclosed was performed. ( emphasis added ) 1. Defendant failed to inform Defendants foreclosure counsel that Defendant was in possession of Plaintiffs {$14000.00} hurricane reimbursement funds.

2. Defendant failed to inform Defendants foreclosure counsel that the monies paid on the hazard insurance and property taxes was from Plaintiffs {$14000.00} and is the reason for the Defendants foreclosure counsel Loss Draft line item reduction down to the {$80000.00} amount on the XXXX Pay off statement. 
3. Violated Texas Constitution___ by failing to identify borrowers XXXX byway of a mandatory counseling session. 
4. Violated Texas Constitution___ by failing to to provide counseling session and couseling certificate.

5. Violated Texas Constitution___ by failing to obtain a picture ID during alleged reverse mortgage closing.

6. Violated Texas Constitution___ by failing to obtain/provide at Plaintiffs request a T-43 wi
th ( if applicable ) an agreement waiving the state issued picture ID 7. Defendant failed to inform Defendants foreclosure counsel that Plaintiff was active in mitigation/short sale negotiations with Defendants Mitigation Department including but not limited to : ( i ) Counseling with non-profit agency introduced to Plaintiff by Defendants mitigation/short sale representative Ms. XXXX XXXX, ( ii ) Plaintiff has USFDA application completed for purchase but is in need of the XX/XX/XXXX Appraisal performed by XXXX XXXX XXXX ( iii ) Plaintiff has completed 80 % of hurricane repairs using his own money and is now waiting for the inspect report performed by Defendants home inspector. Inspector has agreed to 80 % completion. 
( iv ) HUD tolls all foreclosure activity if mitigation is being actively pursued. ( HUD Handbook 4330.1,1.34 : If the mortgagor or the mortgagors estate fails to repay the mortgagee. The mortgagee must begin foreclosure proceedings.If the estate is making reasonable efforts to buy/sell the property, extensions should be granted in 3 month intervals within the entire time not to exceed 12 months ).

The above referenced {$14000.00} are proceeds due Plaintiff from a forced placed hazard policy naming Champion Mortgage as the named insured ( Exhibt ) but was billed and paid for through the Plaintiffs account ( Exhibt ).
Enclosed you will find a copy of the petitioners debt collectors Payoff Statement Form identifying the respondents remaining Loss Draft funds in the amount of {$8000.00} from the original $ XXXX. 
Defendant bases the foreclosure an amount of {$4000.00} for alleged payments made by defendant for payments of property taxes and hazard insurance. 
Plaintiff disagrees payments were made with Defendants proceeds.

Plaintiff alleges Defendant intentionally has misrepresented to this court that Plaintiff has not provided funding to Defendant in order to pay for said Taxes and property insurance.

Defendant has been promised to be reimbursed after every letter Plaintiff mailed, emailed to Defendant. ( exhibit ) Defendant has intentionally misled, misrepresented and lied to Plaintiff knowing full well Plaintiff would rely on Defendants misrepresentations. 
and reason for this monetary foreclosure proves that the petitioner paid the alleged DEFAULT charges with the respondents money. Proof of the Defendants possession of the Hurricane Harvey proceeds along with the lawful right under Paragraph 38 ( i ) ( 1 ) ( x ) 1. ADDITIONAL ADJUST Examples of Items for which adjustments may be made include taxes.Flood or Hazard insurance premiums, if the consumer is being substituted as an insured under the same policy meets RULE 95 requirement ( s ) ( When a defendant shall desire to prove payment, he shall file with his plea an account stating distinctly the nature of such payment, and the several items thereof ; failing to do so, he shall not be allowed to prove the same, unless it be so plainly and particularly described in the plea as to give the plaintiff full notice of the character thereof ).

FRAUDULENT HUD CERTIFIED APPRAISAL BY DEFENDANTs APPRAISER On or about XX/XX/XXXX, Plaintiff agreed with Defendant to pay for a short sale HUD CERTIFIED APPRAISAL. 
Defendant retained the services of XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Texas. 
XXXX XXXX  was retained to perform an appraisal of the exterior and interior of subject property in order to determine the valuation to be used for the agreed upon short sale purchase by respondent. 
XXXX invoiced and was paid {$330.00} for the alleged HUD CERTIFIED APPRAISAL. 
XXXX never entered the property much less than entered into the home. 
XXXX produced a fraudulent appraisal in the amount of {$90000.00}. 
Defendant upon being provided knowledge - by Plaintiff - of their short sale HUD CERTIFIED APPRAISERs fraudulent short sale appraisal instructed XXXX XXXX to cease communication with Plaintiff. Defendant instructed XXXX to inform XXXX that XXXX must direct all communication to Defendant. 
Plaintiff has followed XXXX instructions and has requested a copy of the XXXX Appraisal from Defendant no less than 15 times in writing and twice by way of a RESPA QWRs. 
Defendant continues to protect their appraisal company and refuse to provide a copy of said short sale appraisal. 
Plaintiff has also made demand ( exhibt ) ( cert mail rec # XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) to XXXX for a copy of appraisal or a {$330.00} refund. XXXX has refused to provide a copy of the fraudulent {$90000.00} appraisal nor has this company refunded the {$330.00} appraisal fee. 
Plaintiff now considers the {$330.00} a theft. 
XXXX now claims their company did not prepare an appraisal. 
Defendant refuses to comment. 
BREACH OF AGREEMENT REGARDING IF DELINQUENT TAXES ARE OWED Defendant provided instructions with the short sale agreement/contract - informing Plaintiff that if any delinquent taxes are owed, please notify us WE are required to to pay for them and add them to the ( short sale ) payoff amount. ( EXHIBIT Plaintiff acknowledged and agreed to pay taxes and add them to the closing cost. 
Defendant retained the services of XXXX, XXXX who contacted Plaintiffs XXXX XXXX XXXX and instructed this government body to not accept tax payments from Plaintiff. Plaintiff only became aware upon attempting to make tax payment and was informed it was not necessary. 
Defendant intentionally mislead Plaintiff into thinking a short sale was imminent and moving forward and the tax payment was simply a normal path towards a short sale. 
Instead, Defendants goal was to use an expedited non-judicial foreclosure in order to foreclose on the property the Plaintiff has spent 10s of thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours repairing Hurricane Harvey damage with the estates money and after and only after their inspector agrees the damages are at over 80 % repaired with the plaintiffs funds _ Defendant now attempts to foreclose on. 
MISAPPROPRIATION OF PLAINTIFFs HURRICANE REIMBURSEMENT PROCEEDS including but not limited to : FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION, NEGLIGENCE BREACH of CONTRACT Clearly no tax/insurance monetary {$4000.00} DEFAULT occured based upon the Defendants conduct towards Plaintiff and more importantltly the Defenedant having care custody and possession of the Plaintiffs hurricane re-imbursement proceeds. 15 USC1692 ( g ) 809 VALIDATION OF DEBTS ( b ) Disputed debts Defendant states the Defendant paid for the taxes and insurance resulting in this NON JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE. 
Defendant carelessly omitts the fact that payment was with Plaintiffs hurricane reimbursement proceeds, proceeds in Defendants possession since XX/XX/XXXX and all the while collecting interest AND- refusing to explain where the missing hurricane proceeds are now located. 
PARTIAL MISSING HURRICANE HARVEY INSURANCE REPAIR PROCEEDS per Defendants XX/XX/XXXX pay off statementThe forced placed insurance companies 1st payment was for {$10000.00} exhibit The forced placed insurance companies 2nd payment was for {$6700.00} The forced placed insurance companies total net payment ( s ) equal {$16000.00} Defendants debit collectors Pay Off Statement shows a Loss Draft Funds line item amount of {$8000.00}. 
The amount received by the Defendant {$16000.00} was reduced to {$8000.00} as stated in the Debt collectors Payoff Statement representing an unsubstantiated deducted amount of {$8700.00}.

The alleged RULE 736 monetary foreclosure default amount is {$4900.00}. 
This leaves an unaccounted/disappearing deduction of {$3700.00} in hurricane reimbursement proceeds due Plaintiff. 
When Plaintiff requested documentation regarding the missing monies - byway of four RESPA governed QWRs the debt - collector informed Plaintiff that that they did not have the information and the Defendant would promptly reply to Plaintiffs information request.

Todate our QWR request remain unanswered. 
It appears Defendant is using this expediated foreclosure as an attempt to avoid having to answer questions concerning the missing/unaccounted Hurricane repair/re-imbursement funds.

This Debt Collectors missing {$3700.00} Payoff Statement is dated XX/XX/XXXX. 
As concerning as this missing {$3700.00} hurricane reimbursement proceeds are It pales with respect to the following missing/disappearing hurricane funds.

ENTIRE MISSING HURRICANE HARVEY INSURANCENSURANCE REPAIR PROCEEDS per Defendants XX/XX/XXXX pay off statement- Defendants Counsels XX/XX/XXXX Payoff Statement is in error and is an attempt to foreclose on the property without judicial oversight and to gain unjust enrichment byway Plaintiffs Hurricane Harvey reimbursement proceeds. 
The prior XXXX PARTIAL MISSING HURRICANE HARVEY INSURANCE REPAIR PROCEEDS was identified as a Loss Draft Funds line item.

Plaintiff through a QWR requested reimbursement for Hurricane repairs - as was agreed to. 
Instead of communication explaining Defendants reason ( s ) for non-payment Plaintiff received : - Defendant acknowledged Plaintiffs XX/XX/XXXX QWR and agreed to answer Plaintiffs QWR by XX/XX/XXXX - Defendants Counsel notified Plaintiff with a XX/XX/XXXX PAYOFF STATEMENT FORM. - Defendants Counsels XX/XX/XXXX PAYOFF STATEMENT FORM lists the Foreclosure sale date as XX/XX/XXXX. - Defendants Counsel on XX/XX/XXXX gave Plaintiff NOTICE OF ACCELERATION though the foreclosure sale date was set. - Defendants Counsel/Substitute Trustee gave NOTICE OF XX/XX/XXXX Foreclosure sale. 
The XX/XX/XXXX Pay Off Statement provided to Plaintiff from Defendants foreclosure counsel has no Loss Draft Funds line item. The funds have disappeared.

Maybe this line item description should be re-named LOST FUNDS because that is what it appears to be lost misappropriated fraudulently misplaced stolen. The entire Hurricane re-imbursement
recovery funds has evaporated.

Plaintiff has been promised by numerous Defendant ( s ) representatives that Plaintiff will be provided {$11000.00} since XX/XX/XXXX. 
Todate, no hurricane reimbursement funds have been made to Plaintiff and Defendant continues to breach this agreement made with Plaintiff. 
In fact ; this is not the first time Plaintiff has had difficulty in re-covering storm damage proceeds.

It appears that refusing to force their elderly client after sustaining a major catastrophic occurrence to the property the Defendant refuses to promptly release repair funds forcing their client to begin repairs with their savings then when the client gets behind on the taxes/insurance they foreclose. 
The previous situation ( though a judicial not a non-judicial ) occurred on XX/XX/XXXX with the alleged default amount being XXXX. - Plaintiff and Defendant ( through a different Debt Collector/Foreclosure Counsel ) agreed that a misunderstanding had occurred between two parties. - The parties agreed that The XXXX Estate was actively communicating with Champion Mortgages Loss Draft Department Mitigation Department XXXX and XXXX, Texas corporate offices. - The XXXX Estate provided documents to Champion Mortgages counsel identifying the {$13000.00} held in Champion Mortgages possession due to the passing of two ( 2 ) tropical storms. - The XXXX Estate agreed with Champion Mortgages counsel that a deduction of {$3200.00} from the XXXX Estates {$13000.00} Remaining Insurance Funds. 
It was recognized that 12 U.S.C. 1715z-20 ( i ) provides additional relief this statue is aptly titled PROTECTION OF HOMEOWNER AND LENDER and states in relevant part : ( 1 ) In order to further the purposes of the program authorized in this section, the sectary shall take any action necessary ( A ) to provide any mortgagor under this section with funds to which the mortgagor is entitled under the insured mortgage or ancillary contracts but that the mortgagor has not received because of the default of the party responsible for payment. 
It has now been over 2 years and the Defendant the responsible party to make payments to Plaintiff on the hurricane re-imbursement proceeds is and has been and continues to be in default.

This statuary relief should have been exercised under RULE 736.1 ( d ) ( 3 ) ( G ) - Before this application was filed.

CAUSE OF ACTION ( s ) 1st CAUSE of A
CTION FOR BREACH of CONTRACT : Plaintiff repeats and re-allege every allegation above as if set forth herein in full.

As described above, Breach ( s ) of Contract were performed against Plaintiff including but not limited to : ( i ) 19 letters from Defendant instructing Plaintiff to make repairs on the property Champion Mortgage has an interest in with a guarantee prompt payment would follow.

( ii ) Defendant ordered a short sale appraisal, charged the {$330.00} fee to Plaintiff promised Plaintiff to provide a copy of said appraisal after each letter from Plaintiff.

Todate and after two ( 2 ) years of pro
mises - Defendant continues to refuse to provide a copy of the appraisal Plaintiff was invoiced for.

( iii ) Defendant assured Plaintiff that a short sale contract would be promptly executed after Plaintiff received the appraisal and had a letter of guarantee from Plaintiffs lender USDA. Plaintiff has a contract submitted to Ms. XXXX XXXX, regional manager, XXXX x XXXX, XXXX, Texas. The two-year delay in receiving the Appraisal has caused harm to Plaintiffs relationship with lender. 
( iv ) Defendants Loss Draft Department promised on numerous occasions to provide a copy of the adjusters estimate in order for Plaintiff to retain a contractor to repair the hurricane damages per the line item estimate from insurance adjuster/company.

( v ) Defendant promised to provide Plaintiff with a copy of the homes inspection report the report that lists the percentage of hurricane repairs completed. The inspector informed Plaintiff on XX/XX/XXXX that she had listed the repairs at over 80 % but was instructed by Defendant to lower to 80 % completion.

( vi ) Defendant through three ( 3 ) representatives including a Loss Draft Supervisor promised to have in a hurricane re-imbursement check in the amount of {$11000.00}. 
00 in the mail no later than Friday, XX/XX/XXXX XXXX vii ) Plaintiff has been put on notice from one of the numerous contractors regarding the outstanding balance owed. Contractor has given a five- day cure date a lawsuit will be filed. 
Plaintiff and Defendant therefore had a valid contract 2nd CAUSE of ACTION FOR BREACH of the IMPLIED COVENANT of GOOD FAITH and FAIR DEALING : Plaintiff repeats and re-allege every allegation above as if set forth herein in full The purpose of the covenant is to guarantee and common law to act in good faith and to deal fairly with each borrower XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Defendant enjoyed substantial discretionary power affecting the rights of Plaintiff during the above events alleged in this Complaint. 
Defendant routinely and regularly breaches this duty by : a ) Failing to supervise their employees and sub-contractor b ) Routinely demanding information that Plaintiff had provided repeatedly c ) Failing to follow through on agreements and implied promises d ) Failing to follow through on contractual agreements e ) These actions constitute bad faith by the defendant 3rd CAUSE of ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE : Plaintiff repeats and re-allege every allegation above as if set forth herein in full At all times relevant herein, the Foreclosing Defendants, acting as Plaintiffs lender and loan servicer, had a duty to exercise reasonable care and skill to maintain proper and accurate loan records and to discharge and fulfill all other incidents/promises, be attendant to the maintenance, accounting and servicing of loan records, including, but not limited to ; accurate crediting/payment ( s ) owed to Plaintiff.

Defendant ( s ) had a duty acting as the named insured on the forced placed insurance policy to promptly notify the forced placed hazard insurance company - after being notified by Plaintiff that a loss had occurred due to the passing of hurricane Har

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation