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.


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.


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)