Consumer complaint received 2019-09-24 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — 
Company: Community Loan Servicing, LLC (formerly known as Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC)
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
In XXXX, I got behind on my mortgage after I had an unforeseen expense : my uncle was murdered, and I had to cover funeral expenses. I was sued in foreclosure. With assistance from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), I submitted a loan modification application to counsel for the foreclosure plaintiff, Bayview, on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, an employee of counsel for Bayview sent  XXXX an email confirming receipt of the application but stating that I am not eligible for a modification due to file [ sic ] having 3 or more prior modifications on the loan. 
The same day, XXXX requested documentation showing the 3 or more prior modifications. After several days, counsel for Bayview provided documentation of five prior modifications. An employee of Bayviews law firm noted that after my loan was modified three times, an additional modification was approved after investor exception was granted. The investor, according to the law firm employee, is XXXX XXXX ; the employee provided a link to the online XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The link did not identify any particular part of Users Guide relating to the number of modifications XXXX XXXX permits ; nonetheless, a search of the Users Guide reveals that XXXX XXXX provides that servicers may ask XXXX XXXX for permission to modify a loan that has been modified three or more times, and explains how to do this. 
In a mandatory court-mediated settlement conference on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX asked that Bayview request from XXXX XXXX an exception to the three-modification cap ( as Bayviews own documents show had been done in the past, with XXXX XXXX acceding to its request ). The court referee presiding over the conference directed Bayviews counsel to provide documentation, at the subsequent conference, of its request to XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX response. 
Despite the courts clear directive, Bayviews counsel did not provide any documentation of its request to XXXX XXXX for an exception, or of XXXX XXXX response. In a letter emailed to XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, Bayviews counsel stated conclusorily that an exception request was submitted to XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, a decision from the investor was received advising the waiver request was denied. ( See appended copy of XX/XX/XXXX letter. ) XXXX responded by pointing out that the response did not satisfy the courts directive, but Bayviews counsel did not reply or provide any further detail. 
However, on or about XX/XX/XXXX, to my surprise and relief, Bayview offered me a trial modification. ( See appended copy of XX/XX/XXXX trial offer. ) I made a timely trial payment to Bayview in  acceptance of the offer, as expressly contemplated by the terms of the offer. I was elated to have been offered the opportunity to save the home that I live in with my fianc and children. The first trial payment I sent to Bayview was debited from my bank account. 
Then, although Bayview had accepted my payment, on or about XX/XX/XXXX, Bayview sent me a refund check and informed me in writing that the trial offer had been made in error. ( See appended copy of XX/XX/XXXX letter and copy of refund check. ) Between the time that I accepted the trial modification offerwhich, by its terms, required only that I make three timely trial payments in order to successfully complete the trialand receiving Bayviews purported withdrawal of the accepted offer, I reasonably relied upon the offer by spending money on repairs to my home. If I had not received the offer and accepted its terms, which are affordable to me, I would not have made the repairs : until I received the offer, I feared that I would not be able to keep my home in light of the pending foreclosure and the prior modification denial.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation