The Courts Protect the Banks and Non-Banks Continually with Whiteout Opinions.
The Only Winners We’re Seeing over and over are the Class Action Lawyers…but the Burkes are Challenging that one-sided Statistic in 2021.
APR 17, 2021
Note: This page will be updated frequently. Please bookmark for future reference.
Requesting information from your mortgage servicer template
Use the sample letter on the third page if you want to contact your mortgage servicer to request information.
How to use this template:
1. Read the background below.
2. Fill in your information on the template letter and edit it as needed to fit your situation.
3. Print and mail the letter. Keep a copy for your records.
New federal mortgage servicing rules require servicers to provide you with information you request related to the servicing of your loan. An information request allows you to get useful information about your account or copies of documents that you may have misplaced.
If you need information from your servicer, you can:
Call your servicer.
They may be able to help you over the phone. See your monthly mortgage statement or coupon book for the phone number.
Write a letter.
If your servicer was unable to provide you information over the phone, you may have additional protections if you write your servicer a letter.
Submitting a letter:
Include your name, property address, and mortgage account number.
Use the name that is on your mortgage and include your spouse or other co-borrower if they are on the mortgage.
Do not write your letter on your payment coupon or other payment form you get from your servicer.
LIT COMMENT: THE ADDRESS YOU POST THE LETTER TO IS VERY IMPORTANT
Send the letter to the proper address.
A servicer may use a special address for borrowers sending information requests. This can be found on your monthly mortgage statement or coupon book or on the servicer’s website. You can also call your servicer and ask them for the proper address.
Note that the proper address for information requests may be different from the address to which you send your monthly payments. Be sure to use the proper address for information requests.
Examples of information requests might include:
I recently changed hazard insurance companies. Can you confirm that you have received an updated homeowner’s insurance policy from XYZ Insurance Company?
I am doing my taxes and have misplaced the annual statement showing the total amount of mortgage interest paid during the year as reported to the IRS. Can you please send me another copy?
I have an adjustable rate loan. Can you please tell me when it is scheduled to adjust next?
A servicer does not have to investigate your request for error resolution if:
The request is overly broad,
You are sending in the same request repeatedly, or
You are requesting help with a loan that was transferred to another servicer or paid off more than a year ago.
What to expect:
The servicer must acknowledge your letter within five business days of receiving it.
Generally, within 30 business days, the servicer must search for the information and either:
Provide the requested information in writing, or
Determine that the requested information was not available and send you a written notice explaining why they could not respond.
If the request asks for the identity and address of the investor (owner of the loan), the servicer must provide this information to you within 10 business days of receipt of the request.
In some cases, the servicer may come back to you in writing and ask for additional information or request an additional 15 business days to investigate and respond to your request.
Generally, servicers are prohibited from charging you a fee for responding to information requests.
If you are not satisfied with the result:
If you believe your servicer did not follow the procedures above in responding to your letter, you can contact the CFPB. We will work with the company to get a response. Contact us at (855) 411-2372 or www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint.
If you need help to understand your other foreclosure prevention options, you can find a HUD-approved housing counselor at www.consumerfinance.gov/mortgagehelp or by calling 888-995-HOPE (4673).
THE BURKE’S LATEST QWR REQUEST
April 4, 2021
PHH Mortgage Services
P.O. Box 66002
Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
46 Kingwood Greens Drive
Kingwood, Texas, 77339-5339
RE: Information Request
Mortgage Loan Number: xxxxxx333
I am writing to request the information using a word template from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, as located on their website at https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ask-cfpb/how-do-i-dispute-an-error-request-information-about-my-mortgage-en-1855/.
The information I seek is described below in regard to the disputed mortgage on my property at 46 Kingwood Greens Drive, Kingwood, Texas, 77339.
I obtained your address from the annual escrow statement, dated November 30, 2020. I also confirmed the address to send my request from the following website – https://www.mortgagequestions.com/main/contactus.html – which discloses the correct address for such communications, namely a qualified written request (“QWR”). You should consider this letter as a formal QWR.
“Requests for information and Notices of Error, including Qualified Written Requests
If you wish to request information or assert an error relating to the servicing of your mortgage loan, including any Qualified Written Requests, you must use the address below and include
– your name,
– your mortgage loan account number,
– property address
– and a statement of either the information you are requesting or the error you believe has occurred.
PHH Mortgage Services
P.O. Box 66002
Lawrenceville, NJ 08648”.
I have provided my name, loan account number and property address as requested above.
In relation to § 1024.36 requests for information which I seek and error I wish to discuss, this request follows:
First, I hereby ask for the identity and address of the investor (owner of the loan) to be provided to me within 10 business days.
Second, I hereby ask for the current total balance outstanding on the loan and;
I hereby ask for a full accounting of the loan for the period starting from November 29, 2018, g. which clearly identifies the principal balance and a detailed monthly breakdown of interest, fees, insurances and other charges which you have applied to the disputed loan account.
The Error: On November 28, 2018 a mandate of foreclosure was issued by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and an entry of judgment applied on November 29, 2018.
The sum sued for and judgment obtained in this legal matter, Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. Burke, 902 F.3d 548 (5th Cir. 2018) was for the original principal loan amount of $615,000 only.
Since the court’s entry of the mandate, I do not believe I have visually identified or witnessed any financial credit entry on any of your financial statements, or from my prior QWR request(s), restoring the balance to the value of the judgment, as pertaining to this disputed loan account since November 29, 2018.
This is clear error and I look for your answer and/or credited/adjusted financial accounting statement(s) within the statutory timeline.
If you dispute the error I have described above, I anticipate your reasoning as part of any response and in compliance with the consumer protection laws.
If you need to contact me to discuss this request, I can be reached at the email address included above or you can respond by letter. Please note, within five days (excluding legal public holidays, Saturdays, and Sundays) of a servicer receiving an information request from a borrower, the servicer shall provide to the borrower a written response acknowledging receipt of the information request.
“If experience demands a presumption that a judge will seize every opportunity presented to him in the course of his official conduct to line his pockets, no canon of ethics or statute regarding disqualification can save our judicial system.” – Justice William Rehnquist’
April 12, 2021
Hilary H. Sommer, Attorney
Direct: 314/ 259-2981
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
One Metropolitan Square
211 North Broadway
MO, 63102 2750
T: +1 31L, 259 2000
F: +1 314 259 2020
Via Certified & Regular Mail
46 Kingwood Greens Drive
Re: Loan No. 7190191333
We represent PHH Mortgage Services, and would like to thank you for your recent inquiry, which was received by PHH Mortgage Services on April 9, 2021. This office received your inquiry today, and will review the issues raised with the goal of providing a response by May 10, 2021. If we are unable to issue a response by this date, an update will be sent in advance.
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to assist with your request. If you have any further questions, please contact me.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Hilary H. Sommer
EXTRACT FROM THE BURKE’S REPLY BRIEF IN CASE 20-20209, BURKE v. HOPKINS, 5TH CIR.
In addition to the Burkes lower court filings [including ROA.1116 and ROA.1178] and initial brief repelling the above, the Burkes would add;
(ii) The Statutes Favor the Burkes and Hopkins is a Debt Collector: See violation;
FDCPA § 1692e; “The false representation of – the character, amount, or legal status of any debt.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A).
Similarly, Hopkins violated the Texas Debt Collection Act (“TDCA”). For example, the TDCA, pursuant to Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 392.304(19), broadly prohibits a debt collector from using any “false representation or deceptive means to collect a debt . . . .”
(iii) The Fifth Circuit’s $615,000 Judgment: The novice MJ took a guess about the $615,000 judgment of this court being falsely enlarged to $1.1+ million dollars [ROA.1125 (viii)] in violation of the statute(s) as discussed herein and the initial brief.
The MJ did not look at the Burkes arguments, which he snubbed in the majority.
Rather, he made a conclusory statement, an erie guess. The facts are, this court rendered judgement of foreclosure and the sum requested by DBNTCO and their lawyer, Hopkins, was for $615,000. The Burkes have been injured with a demand for nearly twice that sum [ROA.1132].
After the judgment and mandate was issued and executed, the Burkes received statements demanding $1.1+ million dollars. The Burkes sent a QWR to Ocwen’s address but it was rerouted and answered by SH [ROA.1131] wherein she admitted the judgment of the 5th Circuit but still demanded payment of $1.1+ million, made payable to Hopkins, in violation of both the FDCPA and TDCA. [ROA.775].
The Burkes have a valid claim as they were injured by the difference between the $1,146,557.32 and the judgment for $615,000.00, which equals damages of $531,557.32.
The FDCPA 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e) states;
“Duty of loan servicer to respond to borrower inquiries.”
The statute does not say “duty of loan servicer…or it’s agent(s)” e.g. foreclosure lawyers/debt collectors.
And, further on: 2605(e )(1)(a);
“If any servicer of a federally related mortgage loan receives a qualified written request from the borrower (or an agent of the borrower) for information relating to the servicing of such loan, the servicer shall provide a written response…”
The statute specifically states ‘or an agent of the borrower’ but there is no such provision for the loan servicer. The clear meaning of the text of the statute is unambiguous. The obligation to respond to the Burkes qualified written response (“QWR”) was the duty of the loan servicer.
The Burkes sent the QWR letter to the alleged loan servicer Ocwen’s specific address for such a request – “Ignoring an exclusive QWR address carries harsh consequences.” Wease v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C., 915 F.3d 987, 995 (5th Cir. 2019).
Here, the servicer did not respond, rather Hopkins replied.
As such, Hopkins reply violates the statute(s) and furthermore, the illegal demands therein, including this debt collectors’ next falsehood – namely, the Burke’s must only communicate directly to Hopkins regarding the QWR as the ‘sole point of contact’ is abusive, deceptive and in clear violation of the FDCPA and corresponding TDCA.
Furthermore, Hopkins letter defies the statute(s) when it erroneously states that the response is from both DBNTCO and Ocwen. Only the servicer is liable to reply, per the statute as shown above, and also per this courts’ opinions.
Once again [ROA.1089], it confirms that Hopkins are purposefully and maliciously abusing the rules, regulations, laws, statutes and ethics for their own financial avarice. Their arguments cannot be trusted nor relied upon. Discovery was warranted before the MJ decided on the premature motion to dismiss.
(iv) The Statutes Favor the Burkes and Hopkins is a Debt Collector:
It is a violation per the FDCPA § 1692e; “The false representation of – the character, amount, or legal status of any debt.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A). Similarly, Hopkins violated the Texas Debt Collection Act (“TDCA”). E.g., the TDCA, pursuant to Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 392.304(19), broadly prohibits a debt collector from using any “false representation or deceptive means to collect a debt.”
However, we also held in Perry that servicers and assignees are debt collectors, and therefore are covered, under the TDCA. See id. (citation omitted).
In light of Perry, we conclude that BAC qualifies as a debt collector under the broader TDCA, irrespective of whether the Millers’ mortgage was already in default at the time of its assignment. (p. 7)
“We REVERSE the district court’s dismissal of the Millers’ TDCA claims under § 392.304(a)(14) as well as the district court’s denial of the Millers’ request for an accounting from NDE. ”
Miller v. Bac Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 726 F.3d 717, 727 (5th Cir. 2013)