Consumer complaint received 2018-04-02 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Other type of mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — 
Company: STERLING BANCORP
State: VA

Complaint narrative:
We are writing this complaint for two reasons. First, to hopefully receive a true attempt by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to help us. Second, that senior management at XXXX XXXX XXXX ( formerly XXXX XXXX ), and the CFPB, will learn about the culture in the Loss Mitigation Department so necessary changes will be made. 
XXXX XXXX ( now XXXX XXXX ) seems to be intentionally failing to provide help, with the ultimate goal of keeping the original mortgage intact by denying potential mutually beneficial solutions and hurting others while appearing to try and help. By their actions which will be described in this complaint, XXXX/XXXX XXXX will be able to foreclose on our home and sue us for the balance owed after a sale and legal fees. With real investigation, their actions illustrate only an appearance to try and help us, and not a true attempt. 
The housing crisis wiped out all of my home equity, but the actions, or lack of action, by XXXX XXXX XXXX has compounded our financial problems. XXXX XXXX XXXX has rejected 2 of our proactive attempts for a mutually beneficial solution, and now looks to be using a delay and drag-on tactic to show the appearance of trying to help without having intention to provide actual help. 
XXXX XXXX ( now XXXX XXXX ) maintains ALL CONTROL over our situation and without help, we will continue to suffer financially. We are completely trapped by this mortgage, and every attempt to find a solution has been prevented in one way or another by XXXX XXXX. Meanwhile, during the 10-year interest only portion of the mortgage, we paid close to {$140000.00} in interest to XXXX XXXX. At this point the CFPB might be our only realistic avenue to receive help. 

I present our situation below, along with how XXXX XXXX  ( now XXXX XXXX ) has prevented us from finding a solution on several occasions. 
I purchased my condo as my primary residence in XX/XX/XXXX for {$350000.00}. I put approximately {$70000.00} as a down payment, then taking out a mortgage with an initial loan value of roughly {$280000.00}. The mortgage was a 10-year interest only ARM that would convert to a 20-year amortizing loan after 10 years. 
I was married in XX/XX/XXXX and we decided to move to XXXX XXXX, VA. We wanted to sell the condo, but the expected sales price would not only wipe out the {$70000.00} from my down payment, but after commissions and closing costs was expected to net around {$260000.00}. 
XXXX First occasion : rejecting proactive attempt of a mutually beneficial solution ) Knowing that the expected net proceeds would be below the roughly {$280000.00} mortgage balance, we contacted XXXX XXXX. Due to our wedding we did not have the balance in cash to cover the expected {$16000.00} difference between the net sales proceeds and mortgage balance. We asked XXXX XXXX, that if we sold the condo, and net proceeds were less than the mortgage balance could they issue us a promissory note for that difference. Our proposed note would be paid off over the next 12 months at an appropriate interest rate and backed by both me and my husband. Our offer or request was flat out rejected. There was no discussion, options, or possible solutions, XXXX XXXX  had no interest in helping us. 
XXXX decision significantly upset us. We wanted to do the best thing for all parties involved and make XXXX XXXX  whole. If XXXX accepted that proposal, the bank would have been made whole, and we would not have been hurt financially the way we have. We never wanted to find ourselves in our current situation of being trapped. XXXX XXXX   unwillingness to work with us, was not only the first of more to come, but has had a significant negative impact on our financial and emotional well-being knowing they had control. With the offer being rejected, we had to rent out the unit. 
( Second occasion : rejecting proactive attempt of a mutually beneficial solution ) The loan was going to convert to an amortizing loan in XX/XX/XXXX. We did not want the loan to convert to a 20-year amortizing loan knowing the new monthly mortgage payment would significantly exceed the monthly rental income. In early XX/XX/XXXX, we contacted XXXX XXXX to discuss our refinance options. XXXX XXXX   was the most logical choice because the mortgage had been with them for over 9 years without incident and figured refinancing with them should be simple. 
XXXX XXXX told us that since the property was not the primary residence anymore, they would only offer a 5-year loan. Even though the new monthly payment under that 5-year loan would be far greater than the upcoming monthly payment we told them we were fearful of. They never even attempted to work with us to find an option. Adding to that, the value of the condo had not recovered from the housing crisis, so the loan-to-value was around 105 %. That meant we would need to apply a large down payment, which we did not have. 
After XXXX XXXX  had no interest in helping us, we then attempted to work with other mortgage companies. Although other mortgage lenders offered longer loan durations for a second home, we still faced the problem of the loan-to-value on a second home/investment property. With the loan-to-value around 105 % we would still be required to place a large down payment leaving us without the ability to refinance. 
Our financial difficulties began in the fall of XX/XX/XXXX. My husbands business had run into difficulties throughout XX/XX/XXXXand he closed his business in XX/XX/XXXX. For many years my husband had a steady income, so the loss of that income was difficult. Being that he was self-employed, he was not able to collect unemployment. In XX/XX/XXXX his gross monthly income from his business was about {$6500.00}. Unfortunately, the ability to find steady employment has proved more difficult than we imagined. 
Our problems magnified just a few months later. Since XXXX XXXX  did not want to help us refinance, the mortgage converted to an amortizing loan in XX/XX/XXXX. The monthly mortgage payment went from {$1000.00} in XX/XX/XXXX to {$2000.00} in XX/XX/XXXX. Adding to that is the condo fee. The total monthly payment for the mortgage & condo fee jumped from {$1500.00} in XX/XX/XXXXto {$2500.00} in XX/XX/XXXX. The condo does have a renter, but after management fees, the monthly income is only {$1400.00} leaving us with a monthly loss of {$1000.00}. Including hazard insurance, the monthly loss is roughly {$1100.00} In late XX/XX/XXXX we felt that our savings would allow us to handle the loss of income and increase in mortgage expense until my husband found gainful employment. Unfortunately, due to the extended period without finding stable employment, and the {$1100.00} monthly loss from the condo, we have completely depleted our savings. Most of my income is commission-based that fluctuates from month to month, so we have found ourselves using debt to cover expenses. 
( Third occasion ) We started working with the Loss Mitigation department in XX/XX/XXXX hoping for either a loan modification or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure. 
We submitted the initial requested documents via email on XX/XX/XXXX. We were informed a few weeks later additional documents were needed. 

We submitted the second set of requested documents via email on XX/XX/XXXX. We were informed a week later additional documents were needed. 

We submitted the next set of requested documents via email on XX/XX/XXXX. 

In late XX/XX/XXXX we were contacted by an appraiser to schedule an appraisal. 
We received the home appraisal report via postal service in mid-May XX/XX/XXXX. We expected to hear from the Loss Mitigation department sometime over the next few weeks. 
After 6 weeks, from the time we received the appraisal, there was still no contact from Loss Mitigation. We called the Loss Mitigation Department and were told everything is in order and our file is with the committee for final decision. 

A few weeks later, in late XX/XX/XXXX, and contrary to what we were told, we received another request for information. Most of which was updated documents or updated dates of documents previously sent. 

During the week of XX/XX/XXXX, we contacted the Loss Mitigation department and spoke with XXXX XXXX. We expressed our frustration at the continual delays, the feeling we were just spinning our wheels because each contact required updating the same information. When asked why we were told weeks ago our file was with the committee for final decision, he said that person should never have told us that, and that they made an error. We expressed to XXXX XXXX that we thought it would be another 2-3 months before we heard anything else and knew the next contact would be the same request for updated information. We also felt that would be a waste of time and it seemed that XXXX was using a stall tactic and had no intention of helping. 
XXXX XXXX assured us that within 30 days of receiving our information, we would have a final decision. 
We sent that round of requested documentation via email on XX/XX/XXXX. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, after hearing nothing from the Loss Mitigation Department, we called XXXX XXXX to discuss. At this point it had been 54 days since submitting the documentation, nearly twice the time frame we were assured of an answer. XXXX XXXX was not available, but we were assured that he would call us back within 24 hours. 
The following day, XXXX XXXX did not call as promised, instead he sent an email again requesting updated information, as well as, a document we did not send in XX/XX/XXXX. As we expressed nearly 2 months prior, this seemed like a stall tactic. Within a few days of receiving the information we submitted we should have been informed that we did not include a specific document. So, because they informed us of this some 55 days later, now this gave a reason to request updated documents. Also, if we had not attempted to contact XXXX XXXX, when would we have been informed? 
On XX/XX/XXXX, just after receiving that email, we placed another call to XXXX XXXX. We could not reach him and requested a return call. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, we sent XXXX XXXX an email wishing to discuss what was going on, and why the wild goose chase. As of XX/XX/XXXX, there had been no return phone call as requested, or response to our email. 
( Additional actions ) On XX/XX/XXXX we sent a letter, via email, to management of XXXX ( now XXXX XXXX ) Loss Mitigation Department detailing what we have gone through with them, the lack of response, and seeming stall tactics. We requested a direct response via phone or email to have a more serious discussion regarding our situation and cut through the runaround of requested document refreshing. 
As of XX/XX/XXXX we still had heard nothing from the Loss Mitigation Department, so we phoned the department to speak with a manager which we were given some excuse. We then asked for their email address to directly email them, we were told they do not give out that information and to send the information to the email address we had been using but note it to the managers attention. 
On XX/XX/XXXX we again attempted to contact the manager of the Loss Mitigation Department via email as directed by staff requesting direct response due to the problems, delays, and run around we described in our emailed letter. We did not receive a response from any manager or staff member from Loss Mitigation. 
The fastest response we received from XXXX XXXX was shortly after the emailed letter we sent regarding what felt like a goose chase and stall tactic stating we required contact before we sent any additional information. We then received a letter informing us they had rejected our application for any type of loss mitigation help. Every other contact from them has taken weeks or months, but this was within days, which I think reinforces our feeling of their true intention. 
We have attempted to call the Loss Mitigation Department. The wait times are quite long on most occasions and they give you the option of leaving a voicemail for a prompt return call, but the voicemail mailbox is always full, so we are unable to leave a message. 
We have begun to receive the letters threatening legal action including holding us liable for legal fees. Because of our experience with XXXX XXXX XXXX we always felt their end game was to force foreclosure and sue us for the loss and legal fees. 
We have been, and continue to be, hurt by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  refusal to work with us and find a solution that will be beneficial for both us and them. They have all the control to find a solution but also the resources to hurt us, and that is beyond unfair.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation