October 1, 2016 – CFPB Complaint

On August 16,2016 I filed a complaint with the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau regarding the deceptive nature of the Loan Modification application process.

America’s Servicing Company responded with a ridiculous (often non-sensical) bullet point style reply that can hardly be considered a response but rather a constructed narrative that continues the deceptive actions documented in this blog.  The representative Desiree Lagerquist called me to discuss it.  In her absurd litany of reasons why they cannot restore my property, Ms. Lagerquist made the comment that I did not provide them with enough detail in the complaint.  Then I pointed out to her that I included an attachment which was a copy of most of the posts in this blog.  I added that this is an extraordinary amount of detail.  This gave her pause and she stumbled.  Then she said something along the lines of “….Oh,…Oh ya…um, we did review that”.  This must be a boiler plate justification… but at any rate, I caught her in a blatant lie.

Their response to my complaint is in this attachment.


MY RESPONSE DATED 10-1-2016

I filed this complaint in order to give the federal government details useful in restoring balance to our market based society. I will not get into a positivistic argument with the bank. Review of the attachment in my original complaint shows that this futile war has already been waged and consumers are not equipped to win this fight. The purpose of documenting the foreclosure process was so that a narrative could be constructed that reveals truths about the infringement on the rights of consumers in our pursuit of prosperity; infringement perpetrated by oligopolistic, unregulated market participants in the financial sector.  This is a case study involving the trespass on the American consumer and the harm done. It shows a progression of events in the first year of a 5 year fight in a documentary style that closely corresponds to objective reality rather than a legalistic, subjective, constructed narrative heavily influenced by corporate bias.

The banks response to my complaint was worded in the typical bank fashion which is to construct a legalistic, positivistic argument that is designed to hold up in a court where the rules have been manipulated by the Oligopolies. My interest in working with the federal government in it’s attempt to bring balance back to society is not motivated by any interest in a legal fight. I’ve already sued the bank and have discovered that homeowners of meager resources have no chance because the private legal industry is also influenced by the income provided by large corporations. My interest as a graduate of one of the best advertising schools in the country is to see balance restored to the market system (i.e. western society). In order to argue for change, it will be necessary to use federal regulation to address deception rather than the courts to remedy a contractual breach.

I can’t argue with bullet points regarding notifications, but through my documentary narrative, I can describe several problems with the loan modification application process. 1) They were deceptive on an on-going basis. 2) I was meticulous in my effort to comply with all of their reasonable requests (and even most of the unreasonable ones). 3) I was diligent in my effort to obtain adequate and accurate information needed to become rational in my decisions on how best to rectify the delinquency. 4) The delinquency was caused by conditions outside of my control. 5) Within 5 months of the first date of the delinquency, I was solvent, capable of resuming payments at their original amount. 6) The effort to deceive caused me harm. 7) I made multiple attempts to get the formula for determining NPV but the bank refused to provide me that information. 8) The NPV formula was necessary so that I could determine how to best spend the cash on had in order to qualify for the loan modification after their exorbitant fees put the full delinquency amount out of my reach.

In short, I struggled and spent hundreds of hours and over four years trying to save my home through the loan modification process and through a lawsuit that cost me over $40,000.00 and forced me into virtual bankruptcy. The bank never intended to help me with a modification because my home had equity. Consumers do not have the resources needed to fight the trespass of large corporations; this is the express purpose of the federal government. I hope that the CFPB and the Federal Trade Commission will make even half the effort that I did in this fight. By using the well developed case law and regulatory rules regarding deception, I know that the power of the middle class and hence, the principle of equality in western society will be preserved. If this does not happen, then we have reverted back to the middle ages where the wealthy aristocracy has ultimate power and the regular people have no opportunity to build prosperity for ourselves and our families.

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)