Consumer complaint received 2018-08-16 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — 
Company: BB&T CORPORATION
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX, President Bush signed into law the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, 12 U.S.C. 5201 et seq. ( EESA ). Two of EESAs stated purpose were to restore liquidity and stability to  the Financial system and to preserve homeownership. 12 U.S.C. 5201. To further its purpose, EESA authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to establish the Troubled Assets Relief Program ( Tarp ) to purchase troubled assets from financial Institutions. 12 U.S.C 5211 ( a ) ( 1 ). In doing so, EESA instructed the Secretary to take into consideration the need to help families keep their homes and to stabilize communities. 12 U.S.C. 5213. 2. Armed with this authority, in XX/XX/XXXX Treasury initiated the Home Affordable Modification Program ( Hamp ) with the goal of financially assisting over three to four Million homeowners who had defaulted on their mortgages or were in imminent risk of default. Treasury Supplemental Directive 09-01 ( SD 09-01 ). To be eligible for the Program, Treasury required mortgage loan servicers to enter into Servicer Participation Agreement ( SPAs ) with XXXX XXXX. SD 09- 01. For each loan permanently modified, the servicer and investor receive certain incentive compensation. 13, Ch. II. MHA Handbook v4.4.

3. Since initiating HAMP, the department of Treasury has issued several Supplemental Directives that provide guidance to servicers on how they should implement the program and explain changes by Treasury to the program. There are currently over 70 Directives, many of which are extensive and quite technical. All of the Directives can be found on the website Treasury established at XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

4. On XX/XX/XXXX, The department of Treasury implemented a new version of the HAMP guidelines ( version 5.2 ) to servicers on how they should implement the program. The Making home affordable Handbook for servicers Version 5.2, Chapter V Second lien Modification ( 2MP ), Process states in relevant part : When a borrower fist lien is modified under the Home Affordable Program or a qualifying GSE Standard Modification and is reported in a match file issued by XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, ( XXXX ) on or before XX/XX/XXXX ( In the case of HAMP ) or on before XX/XX/XXXX ( In the case of GSE Standard Modification ) as having been permanently modified, the 2MP servicer must offer to modify or extinguish the corresponding second lien ( 2MP ), according to the steps outlined in Section 5. Services may, but are not required to, offer to modify or extinguish the corresponding second lien when a borrowers lien is reported in a match file issued by XXXX XXXX after XX/XX/XXXX as having been permanently modified under the HAMP. In addition, if the borrowers first lien is modified under HAMP or a qualifying GSE Standard Modification, the 2MP servicer must dismiss any outstanding foreclosure action on the borrowers second lien, provided that this requirement will cease to apply after XX/XX/XXXX, except where the corresponding first lien has been reported as permanently modified in a match file issued by XXXX XXXX  on or before such date. ( See HAMP Rules, handbook 5.2. 
5. On XX/XX/XXXX, we executed a credit agreement under the Home Affordable program. See permanent loan modification agreement attached hereto. On XX/XX/XXXX, we provided sufficient notice to BB & T home Equity that we had permanently modified the first lien under the Home Affordable Program and therefore pursuant to the HAMP Handbook and directives we requested BB & T to either modify the second lien or extinguish the debt. See fax confirmation hereto. BB & T signed an agreement with Tarp and entered into the Loss Mitigation Program. BB & T ignored the request and failed to adhere by all Treasury Directives. Attached see BB & T loss mitigation application to avoid foreclosure downloaded from their website at the time, yet they deceived us by stating that they do not offer loss mitigation retention or participate in any treasury program, contrary to what their website reflected. See attached BB & T loss mitigation checklist. 
According to the HAMP Handbook 5.2- When a borrower modifies the fist lien under the HAMP prior to XX/XX/XXXX, the second lien holder must dismiss any foreclosure action. 
BB & T filed a lawsuit instead of offering loan modification. To file a foreclosure action when the first lien have been permanently modified prior to the statutory date of XX/XX/XXXX, is unlawful and most definitely a violation of treasury Rules. Florida is a Judicial state and must adhere by statutes and Federal Rules. The reason as to why treasury created such programs was to preserve home ownership and to stabilize communities. 12 U.S.C 5201, U.S.C 5213. BB & T ignored all these Federal Rules and moved forward with the foreclosure action. Under Florida Law, the bank must refute defendants affirmative defenses in order to win summary judgment. See Florida case law, case no. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX v XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.

BB & T, filed a motion to strike our defenses to the HAMP rules and directives. On XX/XX/XXXX, the Judge entered an order striking all of our defenses except for the Home Affordable argument. BB & T could not refute this defense. However, even though Florida Law is very specific that summary judgment can not be entered unless plaintiff refutes and wins, at a later time the judge ignored the law and entered a final judgment. We appealed to the Florida 3 DCA court of appeals. Despite Florida Case Law regarding failing to refute defendants defense and the Treasury Handbook and Directives, the 3 DCA issued an Affirmed decision without elaborating as to why. We were stunned by their decision and investigated further. Attached please see an article made public by a law firm whom conducted an investigation and provided the foreclosure statistics to the 3 DCA. if you carefully review the statistics you will find that something terrible is wrong with the 3 DCA while adjudicating foreclosure cases. Alhtough other districts have ruled on for property owners and issue written opinions, the 3 DCA have denied the same argument and not issue an opinion. The 3 DCA actions are unconstitutional, if everyone has the right to a fair trial, how can their ruling be constitutional when the 3 DCA is ignoring Florida law and federal rules. The 3 DCA has gotten very far, and its time for a Federal Investigation. Are these Judges promised an intensive? we do not know, but the statistics speak for themselves. We should not trust any opinion in connection with foreclosure cases from the Floridas 3 DCA Court of Appeals. At this juncture, the court of appeals even demanded that we pay BB & T attorneys fees, which is bizarre. The treasury implemented the Handbook as a guidance for servicer 's and the judicial courts to follow. In this case, the treasury Rules were ignored by Judge and the fraudulent Florida 3 DCA.

BB & T, 3 DCA, CFPB, need to know the following : Under Florida Section 687.0304 ( 2 ), a debtor may maintain an action on a credit agreement unless the agreement is in writing. We entered into a credit agreement in writing under the Home affordable program. Under Florida section 687.03049 ( 1 ) ( a ). a loan modification ... .is both an agreement which extends credit and which makes a financial accommodation, thus implicating the banking statutes of Frauds. See XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Fla. XXXX d DCA XX/XX/XXXX ). This opinion was issued by the 3 DCA on  XX/XX/XXXX. Yet they affirmed the summary Judgment going against their own opinion??????? definitely something wrong here. The credit agreement we entered came with many financial accommodation that would precluded a foreclosure action. One another accommodation, was to either modify or extinguish the second lien. The 3 DCA forgot that they even issued that opinion yet they affirmed BB & T conclusory arguments. Indeed the actions of BB & T are of Unfair Deceiving Practices must worse then this, the 3 DCA has gone against their own previous opinion on the subject matter and this is should be investigate by the Office to The Attorney General of Florida. We are going to file complaint against the 3 DCA and provide case law and demand a Federal investigation since we are dealing with officers of the court and Judicial or government.

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