Merry Christmas from Wall Street

I decided to separate December 2010 out in its own post.  The reason is that each year, there is a flurry of activity created by the banks attorneys.  They wait until the end of the year because many law offices are closed for vacation the last part of December which puts the homeowner at a further dis-advantage as they try diligently to secure a loan modification, or fight off a foreclosure.  In December 2012, the bank accelerated the note.  This year, I got a notice of the HAMP (federal loan modification) denial on December 29th.  Throughout the month, I had been trying to find out their formula used to determine the denial but they gave me the run-around on that question just like the rest of the application process.

December 10, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – Main database record (documents received)

December 21, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – Main database record (document received)

December 22, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – Main database record (Outbound call completed)

  • Rep says that the HAMP denial letter way sent out Monday the 20th and it takes 7-10 business days.  I asked about NPV calculations.  the letter does not include NPV calculations.  Rep is sending an email to npvremediation@wellsfargo.com to ask them to call me regarding the npv calculations.  They also said they needed a P&L for November.  I should also send a revised Financial Worksheet. Here is another official denial for the HAMP program.  The letter is sent out on December 20th when it’s difficult to get legal help if you don’t have it already.  The reason that they gave for my denial was “Negative NPV”.  When I tried to nail down what that actually meant, I got no answers.  I found out that there is a formula but they bank does not disclose what that formula is.  Wikipedia has lots of information on what Net Present Value is and how it’s used.  I don’t know the accuracy of the article but it suggests numerous problems with this method of accounting because it seems to be subjective in its efficacy (would love some comments here from finance professionals).  A year earlier, an assistant secretary of the US  Treasury, Herbert Allison gave written testimony before the House Financial Services Committee.  Here is a copy of the testimony (Link). In the document, I highlighted the testimony (Pgs 6 and 7) that talks about the “standard net present value (NPV) test”, The design of the HAMP program and who it was intended to help, and the transparency requirements that lenders must follow to inform the homeowner of the reason for denial.  In my series of HAMP applications, these rules were not followed (when the documentation throughout this post supports this argument, I’ll point it out).  Notice at the top of Pg. 8 there is acknowledgement that there are multiple implementations of the “Model” and the initial implementation is determined by the bank, not the federal government.

December 24, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – Main database record (call completed)

  • Call regarding: Loan Processor changed to Nora Lindsay (803-578-8624 ph; 866-590-8910 fx).  I told rep that I’d send updated documemts January 1 to show income for December. Another Change of my loan processor.  More confusion for CHRISTMAS EVE.  Merry Christmas!

December 28, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – Main database record (call completed)

  • Call was regarding documentation to find out if I’d had a chance to fax it in.  I told them I’d send it after the 1st.  Foreclosure date is Feb 1.   I also told the rep that I had not heard from anyone about the NPV. I asked again to have someone from the NPV department to contact me about the HAMP denial and cooresponding NPV calculations.  Rep said that she would send another request for them to contact me and that there was no phone number for that department but then decided to do some research and found a number.  803-396-7529 NPV Mediation.  This goes to show that their representatives handling the loan modification application process had no idea what they were doing, causing major mistakes to be made.  It should be clear in a court that this is a wrongful foreclosure but in state district court, none of it was even considered (from what I could tell, anyways).  I’m not sure if this is my attorney’s fault or the district judge, problems with the market itself, or all of the above.  These are some of the questions I want to get answered if I’m able to locate an expert who will work with me on this case.

December 28, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – Main database record (outbound call completed)

  • I called 803-396-7529 and it went voicemail.  There was no department name in the voicemail greeting, just a rep name and it identified the company as Wells Fargo.  I left message asked her to call me about NPV values. (This was a follow up on the previous phone call from the same day.  Was this really a department or just a rep posing as the NPV Mediation department?)

December 29, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – Main database record (document received)

  • Received today – HAMP denial letter (link).  According to Herbert Allison of the US Treasury, there was supposed to be a denial code in this document.  The code is not there.  According to the Allison testimony, the banks would be audited by the Federal Reserve to make sure they were using an NPV model that meet the treasury’s NPV specifications.  So if I find out that my bank is not doing that (by failing to provide a denial code) then why is there no way for me to request the Treasury audit the bank?  Also, in a court of law shouldn’t it be considered clear evidence of wrongdoing if the bank does not follow the federal regulations?

December 29, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – Main database record (document received)

A Coordinated effort by ASC to Scrap my Application

This post covers May 1st 2010 to November 29th 2010 and documents the loan modification run around, misrepresentations, and sabotage efforts by ASC representatives.  These are entries from my database with links to documents that were scanned and attached.  My comments about the events described in the entries, are highlighted in blue.  On the attachments, I marked up in red where necessary to make it easier to see the relevant information.  (Warning: There’s some pretty shady stuff in here).  Notice the frequency of entries, the amount of documentation sent, phone calls made/received, the level of complexity of the bank’s/investor’s Requests for Information (RFI’s), and the number of bank representatives that I had to keep up with.  It might make your head spin just reading the organized version here.  Actually going through it is much worse.

As you read, Imagine that you are a middle class, homeowner who has never gone through anything like this and believe the bank’s statement that they are trying to help.

May 10, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – ASC Debt Collection Department (outbound call completed)

  • Returning call – Moniqe ext. 59073 – Did not Answer – Left message.

May 12, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – ASC Debt Collection Department (call completed)

  • Documents needed for Loan Modification – 4506 Form with 2007 & 2008 years filled in. 2) Extension form for 2009.  3) MHA questionaire – Fill out every box including N/A where applicable. 4) February Profit/Loss – make sure 1st through end of month is report period. 5) Updated Budget

June 1, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – ASC Debt Collection Department (call completed)

  • left message informing her that a foreclosure process had been started and a sale date was set.  Requested that they send a letter to the law firm to stop the process.

June 2, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – ASC Main Database Record (fax sent)

June 4, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – ASC Main Database Record (call completed)

  • Scheduled date for approval of loan mod is 6/10/2010.  Could take up to 3 weeks.  There will be a trial offering once the approval goes through.  after 3 payments a final offering will be given.  first year interest is 2% then moves up to 5% by the 5th year and stays fixed for the life of the loan.  If I don’t get an offering by the end of June, I need to call to get them to fill out a foreclosure suspension form that will go to their foreclosure department where they can communicate in real time (messaging) with the law firm to stop foreclosure.

June 17, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – ASC loss mitigation department (call completed)

  • spoke with customer service rep.  Foreclosure Sale Date has been moved to Sept. 7th.

June 22, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – Main Database Record (documents received)

  • RFI Documentation June 18 – Received Today via fedex.  (At the bottom of page 2, ASC states that “the government guidelines only allow you one opportunity for mortgage payment relief under the Home Affordable Modification Program.”)  I’m willing to bet that the federal guidelines stated no such thing, particularly since, ASC later stated that I could reapply if my income situation changed. (Misrepresentation of fact) 

June 22, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – ASC Federal MHA Department (outbound call completed)

  • Left message asking how to respond to Request for information (link) (received June 22nd).  Item 2 requests signed tax returns for all borrowers who are salaried employees.  I notified her that I am the only borrower on the note and I am not a salaried employee.  Asked if she still needed additional copies of my tax return. (The document, Item 2, is confusing because I wasn’t a salaried employee).

June 24, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – Main DB Record (Documents mailed out)

  • Response to June 18 RFI (link) (received June 22) (ASC requested a revised 4506T because the other one was incomplete) and 2008 & 2009 Form 1040 – Fedexed today

July 15, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – Main DB Record (inbound call completed)

  • Paul – calling to verify information.  Said that my H.A.M (HAMP) reviewer is Derick Alexander.  there is one more process to go bofore they make the decision on whether I can qualify for the program.

August 11, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – ASC Loss Mitigation (outbound call completed)

  • “Derick Alexander is my H.A.M (HAMP) processor. Ext. 85596.  Called and left message asking about update on status.”

August 19, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – ASC Federal MHA Department (outbound call completed)

  • Tried to leave a message for Maria Negron to call me back but her voicemail was full and the phone system would not let me leave a message. (This makes the process confusing when I cannot get my questions answered)

August 19, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – ASC Federal MHA Department (outbound call completed)

  • called customer service, option 3 (Lisa) she “pulled up 106” (don’t know what that means).  Very talkative..sounded like she was stalling.  As of 28th it’s pending final decision before sending it to the investor.  As of the 18th it was suspended waiting for procedural direction for no longer than 7 days.  If I don’t hear anything by August 28th, I should call ASC to request a postponement of the foreclosure sale date. (The ASC rep recommended a second postponement of the foreclosure sale date.)

August 28, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – ASC Federal MHA Department (outbound call completed)

  • Requested a foreclosure postponement.  said that it was up to the investor.  Also said that I need to send in updated hardship letter, paystubs and financial worksheet.  This is the only notice I’ve gotten about updating the documents.  I have not received a notice by mail or a phone call requesting documents.  I was told previously by phone, that they had all the documents they needed. (ASC failed to send a notice that documents needed to be updated.  Note that according to the phone rep, ASC allows their investors to determine whether or not a homeowner gets a loan modification! Who is the bank’s customer here?  I thought I was the customer since I pay a significant amount of interest to the bank. (If I had known that an investor had that decision making power, I would never have agreed to the terms of the loan.  Here is a great example of a lack of adequate and accurate information in the market which prevents consumers from making rational decisions).  Also I would argue that the situation is a conflict of interest and banks should not be allowed to pit the investor against the homeowner (consumer).  Democratic society, given the knowledge of such a conflict and given a choice, would not allow this situation to occur.  Also note that in Texas, recent lawsuits have determined that homeowners are not considered consumers under DTPA legislation (which is the only legislation that allows consumers to sue vendors of products and services).  Sounds like a convenient way for a business friendly government to resolve this massive conflict of interest (on paper only), allowing sellers of loan servicing services to avoid any accountability in the market (making Texas attractive to large corporations) and hand out economic growth benefits to big business even if it comes at the high price of chopping off the economic legs of the individual citizen.  What about the economic growth of the family or independent contractor?  I guess, in Texas, we don’t matter to the legislature or the governor’s office).

August 30, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – Main database record (documents faxed out)

  • Faxed updated documents today (documents that were requested on August 28)

September 1, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – ASC Loss Mitigation (outbound call completed)

  • “Lisa Shemp 480-375-4761 – Lisa was a proccessor on my account with the Investor Team.  Lisa is no longer a processor and referred me to  Jamie Versteeg.” (Here is an example of the bank constantly changing representatives and referring me to other departments.  They also had different titles for representatives that changed throughout the two year process.  Talk about confusing!!!)

September 1, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – ASC Loss Mitigation (outbound call completed)

  • Jamie Versteeg – Told me that the Request was made by Wells Fargo to the Attorney’s office on the 31st.  Atty made a note on the account that the loan was not eligible for sale.  She said there were “title issues.” (What are these title issues?  If there were title issues, then was it legal for the bank to continue with the foreclosure proceedings)

September 9, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – Main database record (outbound call completed)

  • called in response to their voicemail RFI – The representative did not show that there was any need for additional information.  She did note that I was not qualified for the HAM modification but I was under review for other modification programs.  The first representative transferred me to the line that helps people who have been denied the HAM program.   He said that the HAM program is backed by the federal government and the denial came from them…not the investor.  He said that I would get a letter in the mail from the Treasury department about it.  After I get that letter, I can call back and discuss it with them.  He also said that I was under review for in-house modification programs which are backed by the investor. (One rep tells me that they need more information, but when I call in another rep tells me that is not true.  I’m told that I don’t qualify for the HAMP program.  I’m also told that the federal government denied me, and not the investor.  The rep that I talked to on August 28th told me the investor makes the decision. ( A misrepresentation uncovered by ASC’s own statements)  Since that time, I’ve found out from attorneys, and other banks that the federal government does not make the decision on approval, nor do they dictate the formula used by banks in making the determination (that fact will prove another material lie later on).  At the time I didn’t know that it was a lie.  More confusion!)

September 17, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – Main database record (outbound conference call completed)

  • Called 888-995-HOPE and talked to Heather who put me us on this conference call with ASC.  Spoke with main number and was transferred to Loss Mitigation. (This is the number for the homeownership preservation foundation (link).  I called them to get help with the loan modification application process.  They initiated a conference call which uncovered more confusion and reinforces my conclusion that I did qualify for the program but the bank ignored that fact intentionally.  Here are the handwritten notes with markup in red (link).

September 22, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – Main database record (outbound call completed)

  • June Marie left me a voicemail to call in.  I called loss mitigation and was told that Ms. Carol Michael was my new processor.  I was told that I was under review for an in house modification and that the processor needed updated financial documents – hardship letter, financial worksheet, PL.  I’ll also send the 2009 schedule E and both rent contracts.  The rep notified me that I could request a foreclosure postponement today so I did.  The rep issued the postponement email (GEM, he called it) to the investor. (Another new processor!  The fact that they moved me into an in house modification review without my knowledge indicates that this was a denial for a modification under the federal program.  This one of more than 20 times I had to request a postponement in order to stop the foreclosure while under review for a modification.  It makes me wonder why the bank doesn’t just put it on hold until the review process is over.  Maybe this is done in order to create and unfair environment in favor of the investor?  During this call, the rep said that I could refax updated documents for re-evaluation if I believed the figures they used were wrong. See the markup on page 2 of the written call notes (link) to see the inaccurate information they used to justify the denial.

September 22, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – Main database record (Fax Sent)

  • Sent in a fax (This fax was in response to the representatives document request that I received verbally on September 22nd during the conference call (Here are the documents again) (link).  On the fax cover page (link), I note explicitly that the numbers used were wrong and the supporting documents included in the fax show the proof of my statement.

September 24, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – Main database record (Outbound call completed)

  • called to follow up on RFI to find out numbers used
  • They put in a request for the original MHA processor to call me.  Her name is Debbie Jay.  She plugged in the numbers for the MHA application and can answer my questions.  They also put in a request to have the MHA application resubmitted using the 9-22 documents.  I’m supposed to call back in 5 days (29th). to find out if the MHA application will be re-processed and also find out if the sale date postponement will go through.  (Notice that the onus is on me to make sure that the home is not sold at auction.  This means that the bank takes no responsibility to notify the homeowner that the modification review is still being conducted or that a decision has been made.  This adds to a preponderance of evidence that the bank is not acting in good faith even though it represents to the homeowner otherwise.  This is more mis-representation.  During this call I put in a request for my processor Debbie Jay to call me to answer questions that only she could answer.

September 24, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – Main database record (Fax Sent)

  • Sent Fax – Tenant Leases

September 29, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – Main database record (Conference call completed)

  • Called Brice Vander Linden & ASC in the CCCS office with Debrah Watts
  • The gave me the run around regarding the foreclosure sale date postponement request.  Turns out the request was cancelled by the same person that submited it. (See The Attached Call Notes (link).  These notes document an ASC employee rescinding a request to have the foreclosure sale date postponed.  This is after ASC represented to me that they would make the request on my behalf during the September 24th phone call.)

October 4, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – Main database record (Outbound call completed)

  • called for status update
  • Rep verified the sale date is postponed till November 2.

October 11, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – Main database record (Outbound call completed)

  • I called to follow up on courtesy call on Oct 8.  It was a collections call.  For the loan modification review, they don’t need any other information from me.  I asked to speak with my processor and the rep told me that she did not have contact information for the processor but would send her an email asking her to call me back.

October 12, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – Main database record (Outbound call completed)

October 21, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – Main database record (Inbound call completed)

  • Rep on behalf of Carroll Michael.  They wanted clarification on the lease agreements and advised that when the leases are extended, to send updated documents.  Also advised that the foreclosure sale date was postponed to December 7th. (Another Postponement.  This happened on a monthly basis)

November 1, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – Main database record (Documents Received)

  • MHA program loan modification starter kit.pdf (Another MHA starter kit was received by mail)

November 4, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – Main database record (Documents mailed out)

November 10, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – Main database record (Phone call & Documents mailed)

  • Returned voicemail from this morning.  The call was regarding request for more documentation – 1) Hardship letter 2) 2 paystubs from last 30 days 3) 2009 Tax return. (They already have this information.  More work for me.  This happens over and over again which is a huge burden, particularly when you have other things you could be doing, such as looking for full time work, or networking, or trying to close new business.

November 11, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – Main database record (Documents received)

  • RFI Letter (attachment) received (Here ‘s an example of the complexity talked about in the post dated 10/07/13 (link).  I think the processor, on behalf of the investor, is picking apart my documents looking for any and all ways to make the process more complex.  It’s a perfect example of the obscene level of complexity that the banks and investors have concocted to be able to profiteer off of an economic collapse which they created. Here the bank represents that the federal government determines the deadlines and documentation requirements for the review process.  I’m willing to bet that is a mis-representation.

November 13, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – Main database record (documents sent)

  • Mailed documents via fedex overnight 7964 3494 5428 (Documents included the 2009 Tax Return / P&L Statements / another RMA affidavit and the IRA income explaination.  The IRA income on my tax return came from the liquidation of my retirement account which was necessary to pay for living expenses, including the mortgage.

November 15, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – Main database record (Documents received)

  • Foreclosure sale date notice (link) – 12/07/10 sale date, 4 copies. (Another of more than 20 foreclosure sale date notices that were received.  They sent 4 copies each with a different tracking number.  They appeared to be identical but a diligent homeowner would need to read each and every one every time to make sure they were aware of any information that the bank might attempt to slip through without your knowledge.  That’s 80 to 90 foreclosure documents that needed to be reviewed. 

November 16, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – Main database record (inbound phone call & documents sent out)

  • phone call and mailed documenet
  • Loan processor called to get information on ira dispursement and ask about documents that I sent
  • Also the tax return was signed in the wrong place.  Today I sent the 1040 page 2 via usps.

November 19, 2010 – DATABASE ENTRY – Main database record (documents sent)