Consumer complaint received 2017-03-13 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional fixed mortgage
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure — 
Company: M&T BANK CORPORATION
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
Good morning, A law firm was hired for {$5000.00} to handle a foreclosure matter from Hudson City Savings Bank against XXXX. Hudson City looked to do a modification, every requirement they asked for I submitted to them. Every appearance for court the law firm and myself showed up. ( Their theory for denying the loan modification was that they were too small of a bank which was indicated to me ). As the case move forward the law firm asked for another {$1500.00} and I submitted it to them. At a point, when I was n't hearing from the law firm, I emailed them to see what was going on with the case with no response back. I went to another law firm to see about them handling this matter. Numerous time reaching out to the original law firm for my files, they said the file was too big to make copies of and release. So, I could not get another law firm to review the case, because I could not get the files out. 

As time went on, I received solicitation mail ( not from the bank 's law firm or court ) saying that a judgment was entered on the house. The court has down that I am listed as pro se. So, I have never received any paperwork from the original law firm that was on the case. Also, I never received any paperwork notifying me of any court dates or that I needed to engage another lawyer. After finding out about the judgment, I received mail from M & T Bank ( who bought out Hudson ) in XX/XX/XXXX about applying for a loan modification. I submitted all papers to them numerous times. I was tracking the case as best as I could on ecourts, the last date showing up on file is XX/XX/XXXX. The case says inactive pending future filing. I immediately went down to the court to find out what was going on and it was told to me that the referee who was on the case had a conflict of interest with the bank. Then in a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX M & T suggested about applying for a modification again. I then submitted all requited documents. In a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX M & T said they received the package. Next a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX from M & T was sent requesting more documents, which were all submitted to them. Then, on XX/XX/XXXX I received solicitation mail that there was sale date for XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX I received a letter from the law firm that represents M & T/Hudson that there was a sale date. Prior to this, I have never received any mail from the courts or this law firm. Right down, from the original summons and complaint was supposedly served to a business of my brother 's in XXXX/XXXX. The only mail coming in from the bank was monthly bank statements that included Hudson and including every month from that point on from M & T and loan modification correspondence. 

I believe this falls under dual tracking, as the bank and I were working on a loan modification and I even just signed a new three year lease with a tenant to have additional income coming in to make sure there is enough money for modification requirements, and NOW THERE IS A SALE DATE ON MY HOME. Can you please advise with this matter as soon as possible? Thank you.

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