Consumer complaint received 2026-05-26 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — VA mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — Foreclosure
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: MD

Complaint narrative:
XX/XX/XXXX Bank of America , N.A . Attention : Notice of Error and Request for Information XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX RE : Property : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Dear Counsels - XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX . Bank of Americas XX/XX/XXXX letter is a DOE and legally deficient, factually incomplete, and deliberately evasive. Bank of America, can not simultaneously claim that their response is provided under Regulation X, 12 C.F.R. 1024.35 and 1024.36, while also arguing that the XX/XX/XXXX correspondence forwarded by XXXX XXXX was not a proper Notice of Error or Request for Information because it was not sent to your designated address. Regulation X does not permit a servicer to invoke its protections when convenient and disclaim its obligations when inconvenient. Your letter repeatedly states that no errors were identified and no corrections are required. These conclusory assertions are insufficient. You fail to describe the scope of any investigation performed, the systems or custodians searched, the retention policies applied, or the specific documents relied upon for each determination. A bare conclusion does not satisfy your obligations under Regulation X. Error 1 HOA Payment Misapplication Your claim that all payments were applied correctly and that you have no record of any HOA payment misapplication is not credible. Bank of America has no authority to decide whether HOA payment errors occurred in this account. The U.S. government, via XXXX XXXX and other federal agencies, hired a third party who determined who has already conducted an audit and identified errors in the handling of the HOA and on this loan. That finding alone is supersedes Bank of America and it is sufficient to establish that servicing errors took place. Bank of America, with all their law firms, is not a regulatory agency and can not simply override or ignore a government audit by issuing a self-serving statement that it found no error. Moreover, the Loan History Statement you attached does not address the critical period when the property was under the control of your preservation contractors, ( Who admitted the locks were changed without authorization, and when the property was severely damaged. Bank of America generated an AI letter as the HOA matter does not pertain to Bank of America. Furthermore, Bank of America, does not have access to accounting information nevertheless any ledger, accounting statement, or distribution record showing the actual amounts paid to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX from the foreclosure sale proceeds, or how those amounts were credited against the loan or judgment and if Bank of America does have HOA information, it will be interesting to know how it was obtained. It is now well documented that during this period, major banks, including through their relationship with XXXX XXXX, colluded with homeowners associations to drive foreclosures and extract payments from distressed homeowners. Bank of America blanket denial, combined with the refusal to produce the actual HOA distribution records from the sale, raises serious questions about whether Bank of America is attempting to conceal the full extent of the payment misapplication and the improper benefit the Association received from the defective foreclosure process. A bare assertion that all payments were applied correctly without producing the underlying HOA ledgers, sale proceeds distribution records, or any explanation of how the government audit findings were considered does not constitute a reasonable investigation under Regulation X and the sole mentioned of it, means that an audit is merited. Error 2 Property Preservation Damage and Insurance Proceeds Bank of America state that property preservation activities were conducted in accordance with standard servicing practices and that Bank of America have no record of any insurance claims or proceeds. This response is inadequate. Your own preservation contractors caused damage to the property. One of your agents changed the locks and installed a lock-box without authorization, after which appliances and personal property were removed. The XXXX XXXX Police Department documented this incident. Your claim that you have no record of insurance claims does not address the damage caused by your own agents while the property remained legally mine. You have also failed to identify the systems searched or provide any preservation vendor records, invoices, or communications. Error 3 Foreclosure Sale Based on Depressed Valuation You claim the foreclosure sale was conducted in accordance with applicable law and that the valuation was based on the condition of the property at the time of appraisal. You do not address the XX/XX/XXXX court order that specifically noted PROPERTY DAMAGE and directed Bank of America to repair the property within thirty days. You also ignore contemporaneous appraisals showing the damaged property was valued at approximately {$100000.00} less than half the judgment amount. You can not damage the property, ignore a court repair order, sell it in that condition, and then claim the valuation was accurate. You have provided no valuation analysis, property-condition evidence, or preservation records tied to the valuation. Error 4 DOJ Enforcement Action Review and Exclusion from Settlements Bank of America state that the loan was not identified for review under any DOJ enforcement action or settlement. Bank of America response is not only disingenuous, but it also misleading. In addition to the 2012 California-specific robo-signing case ( Case No. XXXX ), there were several major nationwide settlements involving Bank of America and its predecessor, XXXX. In XXXX, the Department of Justice entered into its largest residential fair lending settlement in history against XXXX XXXX XXXX ( then owned by Bank of America ) in the Central District of XXXX. The {$330.00} XXXX settlement addressed systemic discrimination against minority borrowers. Plaintiff was excluded from any relief under this settlement despite extensive prior communications with Bank of America. In XXXX, Bank of America, along with other major servicers, entered into the {$25.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX Settlement resolving widespread foreclosure and servicing abuses, including robo-signing. Bank of America paid the largest share of this settlement. Plaintiff was again excluded from any borrower relief. Between XXXX and XXXX, Bank of America paid approximately {$16.00} XXXX to resolve Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities claims. Plaintiff received no compensation or remediation under any of these agreements, despite the clear overlap between the misconduct addressed in those settlements and the facts of her foreclosure, property damage, confirmation defects, and post-sale accounting issues. Bank of America statement that the loan was not identified for review does not change the fact that Plaintiff was systematically excluded from relief programs designed to address the very categories of harm she suffered. Incomplete Foreclosure Accounting and Record Destruction Bank of America state that records concerning the distribution of foreclosure proceeds and the VA net-value acquisition calculation are no longer retained in your archival system. You provide only a partial Loan History Statement. You have not demonstrated that you conducted a reasonable search of all servicer files, foreclosure files, legal files, guaranty-claim files, or vendor files. Simply claiming records are purged or may be with the VA does not satisfy your obligations under Regulation X or in active litigation. Bank of America have also failed to provide document retention policy, purge dates, or an affidavit from a records custodian. Credit Reporting Response You state that the loan is no longer being reported to consumer reporting agencies and that prior reporting was accurate when made. This is insufficient. You have not identified what was actually reported, when it was reported, to which agencies, or what documents you reviewed to conclude the reporting was accurate and how negatively impacted and impacts my credit- despite that U. S. Federal agencies found these errors. A conclusory statement does not constitute a reasonable investigation. Demand for Supplemental Response Bank of America must supplement its response within ten ( 10 ) business days and provide the following : All documents reviewed or relied upon for each no error determination. The complete foreclosure sale accounting, including distribution of proceeds and any VA net-value calculations. All property preservation vendor records, invoices, work orders, and communications. All HOA ledgers and records showing amounts paid from sale proceeds and how they were credited. All insurance claim and proceeds records ( or a sworn explanation if none exist ) .All credit reporting history for this loan. A request-by-request explanation, tied to a specific Regulation X exception, for every document withheld as over-broad, burdensome, irrelevant, privileged, or outside your possession. Failure to provide a complete and compliant supplemental response will be treated as continued noncompliance with Regulation X and as evidence of bad faith. Nothing in this letter waives any rights, claims, objections, remedies, or damages. All prior reservations of rights remain in full force and effect. Sincerely, XXXX XXXX Notice of Fiduciary and Ethical Obligations to XXXX XXXX XXXX This addemdum is directed to you in your capacity as counsel for Bank of America , N.A . in connection with the above-referenced loan and property. You are hereby placed on formal notice of your fiduciary duties and ethical obligations as an officer of the court. It appears that AI drafted a letter with matters that do not pertain to Bank of America. As an attorney representing a client in matters involving federal statutes, ongoing litigation, and regulatory compliance, you owe duties that extend beyond mere advocacy for your client. These include : Duty of Candor to the Tribunal Under the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.3, and the corresponding rules adopted by the jurisdictions in which you practice, you have an affirmative duty to be candid with courts and to correct false or misleading statements made to any tribunal. This duty continues even after a representation has concluded if you later learn that false evidence or statements were presented. Duty to Avoid Assisting in Fraud or Misrepresentation You may not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a third party, nor may you assist a client in conduct that you know is criminal or fraudulent. This includes responses to formal regulatory requests under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA ), 12 U.S.C. 2605, and Regulation X. Duty to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation When responding to a borrowers Notice of Error or Request for Information under 12 C.F.R. 1024.35 and 1024.36, counsel has an obligation to ensure that the servicer has conducted a reasonable search and that the response is accurate and complete. A response that relies on conclusory statements while withholding material records does not satisfy this duty. Duty as an XXXX of the XXXX You are not merely a private advocate. You are an XXXX of the legal system with a special responsibility for the quality of justice. This includes the obligation to refrain from conduct that undermines the integrity of judicial or administrative processes, including the concealment of material information or the making of representations that are inconsistent with known facts in the record. The XX/XX/XXXX response letter issued on behalf of Bank of America contains multiple deficiencies that raise serious concerns about compliance with these obligations. These include contradictory positions regarding the applicability of Regulation X, conclusory no error findings unsupported by identified records, failure to produce critical accounting and distribution documents from the foreclosure sale, and incomplete or evasive responses regarding property preservation, HOA payments, and credit reporting. You are further advised that continued reliance on prior responses, blanket assertions that records have been purged, or deflection of responsibility to other entities ( such as the VA ) without a demonstrated reasonable search of all relevant files may constitute a violation of your ethical duties, particularly in light of the government audit findings and the documented internal concerns regarding the foreclosure and title issues. This letter serves as formal notice that any further deficient or misleading responses may be used as evidence of bad faith and may be brought to the attention of the appropriate courts, regulatory bodies, and disciplinary authorities. Nothing in this letter constitutes a waiver of any rights, claims, or remedies available to me. All prior objections, demands, and reservations of rights remain in full force and effect. I expect a complete and compliant supplemental response within the timeframe previously demanded. Sincerely, XXXX XXXX Issue in XXXX Letter, Why Its an Error, Regulation/ Legal Problem 1 ) Contradictory position on Regulation X, '' They claim the response is under 1024.35 & 1024.36, but then say your XXXX XX/XX/XXXX letter ( forwarded by XXXX ) was not a proper RESPA request because it wasnt sent to the designated address. '' You can not invoke the protections of Regulation X while simultaneously disclaiming its obligations. This is a classic bad-faith tactic. 2 ) Conclusory no error findings, '' They repeatedly say no errors were identified without describing what investigation was done, which systems were searched, or which documents were reviewed. ", Regulation X requires a reasonable investigation. A bare conclusion is insufficient ( see XXXX XXXX Bank of America ). 3 ) Failure to identify relied-upon documents, They never clearly list what records they actually reviewed for each no error determination., Required under 12 C.F.R. 1024.35 ( e ) and 1024.36 ( d ). 4 ) Global / blanket objections, '' They make a broad statement that some requests are overbroad, burdensome, or not in their possession without tying each objection to specific requests. ", Regulation X requires them to respond to the reasonably identifiable portion and explain each withholding specifically. 5 ) Incomplete foreclosure accounting, '' They only gave a partial Loan History Statement and claimed records of foreclosure proceeds distribution and VA net-value calculation are no longer retained. They did not prove they searched all relevant files ( servicing, legal, foreclosure, vendor ). ", This is not a reasonable search. They also failed to provide retention policy or custodian affidavit. 6 ) VA record deflection, They say VA net-value records may have been maintained by the VA without showing they searched their own guaranty-claim files or vendor files., XXXX ( as servicer ) had obligations to maintain and produce these records. 7 ) Weak valuation response ( Error 3 ), '' They claim the sale was proper and valuation was accurate, but completely ignore the XX/XX/XXXX court order ( PROPERTY DAMAGE ) and the XX/XX/XXXX appraisals showing ~ $ XXXX value. ", They must address the specific evidence you raised. 8 ) Misleading settlement response ( Error 4 ), They say the loan was not identified for any settlement. This is misleading because you were excluded from the XXXX XXXX Fair Lending Settlement and the XXXX XXXX XXXX Settlement despite the nature of your claims., They are downplaying the pattern of exclusion. 9 ) Credit reporting response is conclusory, '' They say the loan is no longer reported and prior reporting was accurate when made without identifying what was reported, when, or to which bureaus. ", This does not constitute a proper investigation or correction under FCRA or RESPA. 10 ) Record destruction without justification, " They admit BPOs and old escrow statements were purged but provide no retention policy, purge dates, or proof of reasonable search before destruction ( especially after litigation was foreseeable ). ", This can support spoliation arguments.

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