We’ve been dealing directly with loss mitigation for just about a decade now. With direct stories coming from our experiences on the front lines we have seen that Chase, specifically confirmed with the Washington Mutual twice, we were advised that money needed to be paid to second non-attached loans. In many cases these were loans that the servicer may have held for other properties that the same borrower had owed. The interesting twist to it all is in both cases that we experienced this Chase was attempting to put a second mortgage on a property that didn’t exist. The first time they put a loan number on the approval letter that did not even correspond to the same property and delayed the funding on a property along with the second time they brought this up as a reason why an approval letter could not be issued till the discrepancy was cleared up. In both cases no known judgments had been issued and no information pertaining to these loans existed in the title record.
Are you experiencing the same thing? Sign in and post your thoughts below.