This is renoira's Profile page. Use it to view renoira's comments, other users' replies to these comments, and comments renoira has endorsed.

What's Happening Now

August 14, 2012 11:15 am

We received our notice of servicing as outlined here, however, the company doing the servicing did not have all the correct information and did not honor the temporary modification outlined by the previous servicer causing us untold hardship and stress.

Because of their delay in information and application they immediately came after us for charges and late fees that we could not have avoided. It was unfair and predatory.

In addition, our previous lender did not work fairly with us, but now that they have sold our loan they no longer have to work with us to correct the flaws in our loan, they simply wash their hands and the new lender/servicer can truthfully say it was not “their” fault.

August 14, 2012 11:32 am

This option does not take into account the fraud perpetrated by many lenders. While they manipulated LIBOR rates and charged outrageous interest, lying to homebuyers about the loans and ignoring phone calls and pleas for workouts until it was too late to fix the problem.

The lenders were required to write modifications by our government, however it was not legally enforceable so they played games with borrowers by dragging out the modification process until the borrower missed a payment or became dismally discouraged or lost a job.

Many of these lenders are still playing games with the homebuyers and not working with them, but foreclosing with impunity.

I think that lenders should be forced to include principle write-downs as part of their “workout” to prevent foreclosure.

“The… more »

…most elementary conceptions of justice and public policy require that the wrongdoer shall bear the risk of the uncertainty which his own wrong has created”. See, Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., 327 US 251 – Supreme Court (1946), See Package Closure Corp. v. Sealright Co., 141 F.2d 972, 979. That principle is an ancient one, Armory v. Delamirie, 1 Strange 505

The amount of information that is publicly available regarding the fraud that brought us into this place should be enough evidence that the homebuyer should not have to bear this burden alone.

It is time to get some real relief for the homebuyers – currently their are more foreclosed homes than families without homes, and no sign of letting up. The consumer cannot continue to carry this fraud alone – we did not initiate it. « less

August 14, 2012 11:42 am

We have been trying to get help for over 6 years! We were able to salvage our loan six years ago, but unanswered phone calls, lack of replies to mailing and requests for assistance plunged us deeper and deeper into debt.

While we have been struggling for relief, our state and federal government has made numerous settlements with the fraudulent lenders, such as Countrywide, yet the homebuyers get not relief.

At the beginning of our struggle all we wanted was to convert our option ARM loan to a 30 year fixed at a lower interest. Our calls were ignored for months and we were transferred to one person after another, each time we had to begin again with our explanation and information! When at last we had to get another loan to avoid the continuing financial slide, Countrywide sends us… more »

…e-mails telling us what a good customer we were and offering us a 30 year fixed rate. Too little…too late. This should not be allowed! « less
August 14, 2012 2:56 pm

Renoira, thank you for your comment. Stories like yours are a large reason why CFPB was created in the first place. Do you believe the proposed early intervention rules would help people avoid going through what you had to?

August 14, 2012 3:10 pm

Hi renoira, and thanks again for sharing your experience. section 2 sets new rules for servicers keeping borrowers information and transferring it accurately. Can you share with us in that section whether you think the new rules are enough?

August 28, 2012 11:27 pm

Another case in point. The only way to get them to move toward assisting is to hire an attorney to sue.

August 10, 2012 5:55 pm

To rely on oral communication would be disastrous for homeowners. If I had not have everything in writing, I would not have the ability to take them to court.

August 12, 2012 8:27 am

The answers to my QWR were quite surprising. The servicer might argue they have too high of costs and burden to reply and that some are “overly broad”. However, the servicer had no problem providing me pages and pages of payoff statement and payment history – they actually send these information several times for some strange reason. However, even after they wrote me that they checked the reinstatement fees and confirmed those as “correct” they cannot itemize even half of them. That would take one or two pages to print out and mail – much easier than the information they were willing to provide. That request was “too broad”. So yes, the servicer can call too broad what ever they want to. I will now write a new QWR asking again for itemization… more »

…of the fees. As a bank they should be able to find out how they themselves came up with that number – especially as they have checked them and confirmed in writing that they were correct. By the way – the confirmation about the fees being correct came in writing and a copy went to the CFPB. I don’t believe I would have gotten an answer at all if I had not complained with the CFPB. And here is a suggestion for the servicer to cut cost: in pre-foreclosure we received a “Home Transition Guide” – magazine style and no doubt expensive to print and send that we really didn’t care for. During the Hamp modification trial we received the same request for our tax returns via Fed Ex over and over again (about 7 or 8 times because they kept loosing our documents). Also, ten days after we reinstated, they send Fed Ex AGAIN with a note that we needed to short sale or give them the deed in lieu of foreclosure. One would think they own Fed Ex as much as they use it. Some servicers are either completely ineffective with internal communication or they really enjoy throwing money at Fed Ex.
Also: the proposed clause “for information it can’t get from its records in the “ordinary course of business” with “reasonable efforts” is downright inviting fraud. They need the original promissory note with endorsements or allonge to assign it when the loan is transferred. When they obtain it, it should not be very hard to make a copy, right? Since the ordinary course of their business has become robo-signing, it makes it even easier to deny the request of a copy of the endorsed note.
As for information “not directly related to the account”: this exclusion would give them right to hide fees from their affiliates. That could make the game of inflated maintenance fees in foreclosure, force placed insurance, unearned kickback fees, attorney fees a whole new chance. If a servicer charges these fees, they should know what they are for and have no problem of disclosing. Last but not least: the servicer already successfully denies to answer QWR that can be interpreted as nothing but harassment. Do I think we need to make it any easier on them? No I don’t.
My conclusion is that the servicers just don’t want to inform the consumers. In the year 2012 they can get all the information tied to a borrowers loan with a few strokes on the keyboard. Nothing too difficult. It is just that some information they DO NOT WANT TO GIVE.

The CFPB’s only role is to protect the consumer. They should not even have to worry about making it easier for or less costly for the servicer or the bank. My servicer chose to spend money on hiring a high profile law firm only to (not) answer my QWR entirely. Well – that is their choice.
« less

August 11, 2012 9:28 pm

When borrowers call in for information or documents, Borrowers should be sent limited access permission to view only their account information and loan documents in the company document viewer portals, borrowers should be permitted to print out all docs found in their loan records. This automated process is relatively cost free for the institution and allows the borrowers to gain access to requested docs, and also information pertaining to servicing issues. Should the borrower have additional needs beyond this there should be a special link the borrower can intiate in the portal to request additonal information or personal contact from the institution. The institution can use this individual posting board to communicate with the borrower, log comments and actions regarding borrowers inquiry.… more »

…This posting board or communication log should be fully accessible by the borrower with complete transparentcy. « less
August 11, 2012 12:28 pm

The law may not require lenders to offer modifiations but it certainly does require lenders to treat all similarly situated parties the same. The mortgage industry issued over 5 million NEGATIVE EQUITY modifications to avoid the investor losses proven by the mathematical result of a +NPV setting their own NEW PRECEDENT what is the new course of business. Every homeowner with a loan to value of 80% of greater is legally, ethically and morally entitled to a similar financial advantage, capitalism and the law.
For more information see the petition located at