Complaint #1618859 submitted on 10/21/2015 relating to Servis One, Inc.. Complaint relates to Mortgage Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM) - Loan modification,collection,foreclosure .
Complaint was submitted via Web and sent to the company on Monday 26th October 2015.
1. Or about XX/XX/XXXX a re-submission of loan modification was finalized but denial of loan modification followed in less than 30 days from resubmission in absence of calculative methods used to derive a reasonable mathematical explanation for denial of loan modification.
2. On or about XX/XX/XXXX a formal dispute was submitted. Within 30 minutes from submission of formal dispute borrower received a call from assigned representative XXXX XXXX. XXXX EXT XXXX to inform that the underwriter could not approve modification as BSI could not derive an affordable payment from income provided and that investor would not go below 6 % to calculate new modified payment doubling the mortgage payment to about {$12000.00} a month.
3. On or about XX/XX/XXXX borrower requested denial letter and sent qualified written request.
XXXX. On or about XX/XX/XXXX contacted BSI and spoke with assigned loss mitigation specialist whom provided the following information : According to XXXX XXXX : There is no material change so therefore there is a denial.
Upon verbal request of income information the total income used for review was XXXX. Income was derived no material change from previous review. XXXX earnings are XXXX semimonthly, real estate average XXXX XXXX XXXX per the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX provided.
XX/XX/XXXX tax returns provided and reported a loss. But could not explain where on tax returns loss was reported. There is a depreciation expense but that was not explained.
Husband 's contribution of XXXX and XXXX was used.
Further clarification on figures was requested because the numbers did not add up including the source of the {$4800.00} figure. XXXX XXXX could not clarify but and stated she would speak to underwriter and upper management and I would get a call sometime tomorrow.
Although no clarification of income was provided to explain the {$4800.00} figure it was explained that monthly income on RMA was compared to worksheet-net income to show property is not affordable and Income presented much lower than the income provided on RMA. However, this is a stretch since no income figures could be explained despite previous QWR.
In the end the conversation ended with a promise to follow up and a call back but no material clarification was given to explain denial, which was the same promise made verbally in the last conversation not withstanding previous QWR and formal dispute requesting the same information.
This modification has been in process for years. First with XXXX who transferred to XXXX XXXX XXXX who hired XXXX to collect {$31000.00} which I paid which was never applied to principal balance. Then loan was transferred to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and now to BSI.
I am requesting assistance with my mortgage loan modification and reasonable efforts on behalf of mortgage servicer to underwrite the mortgage for loan workout in a commercially reasonable manner. Circumventing requests for calculative methods to support denial is not commercially reasonable. Please see attached formal dispute and QWR 's. ( 2 on file )
| Company | Servis One, Inc. |
| Complaint ID | 1618859 |
| Date Received | 10/21/2015 |
| Product | Mortgage Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM) |
| Issue | Loan modification,collection,foreclosure |
| State/ZIP Code | MA 024XX |
| Consumer Consent | Consent provided |
| Company Public Response | Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law |
| Company Response To Customer | Closed with explanation |
| Submitted | Web 10/26/2015 |
| Result | Timely Response: Yes, Consumer Disputed: Yes |
Leave your comments and feedback below.