You won't believe this!

[MyHAMP]

We got a call from SPS today, telling us we would receive a new mortgage-contract because we "wouldn't be approved for HAMP".

Are you kiddin' me? Half a year after our approval and making modified payments? AND although we have a written and undersigned (by the lender) agreement (see my sig)?

They told us they made "mistakes" during the process and that would entitle them to void the current agreement. I share a different POV, especially with a loan signed by both parties.

They told us we would "basically" get a similar offer but I can already tell you that if it's only a tiny little bit worse than the current deal, we won't accept it. And I do believe we are in the driver's seat now.

This is a country where written contracts have a value, right? If not...well, everybody who already received a HAMP should be very worried...

[MyHAMP]

BTW, here is what they did on the account - all on one day (yesterday):

[jakelabry]

This is a country where written contracts have a value, right? If not...well, everybody who already received a HAMP should be very worried...

Perhaps it's value is the same as your original mortgage?

[MyHAMP]

Perhaps it's value is the same as your original mortgage?

Obviously not - because I don't recall they gave up any of their rights.

I called them now and they verified we would get a new SPS-loan within 30 days with a monthly payment not exceeding 31% of the current income - so the payment won't go up. That fact alone doesn't give them much room to change the other conditions of the loan (APR, duration etc.) - at least not to our disadvantage.

I was also able to find out that an audit from treasury was the cause for this action. So to anybody else with a HAMP: Yours could be gone by tomorrow as well.

So I guess I needn't blame SPS - it was the treasury's decision.

[AzGryffindor]

Herein lies the problem. Look at page 6, paragraph K:

That I will execute such other documents as may be reasonably necessary to either (i) correct the terms and conditions of this Agreement; or (ii) correct the terms and conditions of this Plan if an error is detected after execution of this Agreement. I understand that a corrected Agreement will be provided to me and this Agreement will be void and of no legal effect upon notice of such error. If I elect not to sign any such corrected Agreement, the terms of the original Loan Documents shall continue in full force and effect, such terms will not be modified by this Agreement, and I will not be eligible for a modification under the Home Affordable Modification program.

There has to be something under basic contract law that puts a time limit on this.

If you take that paragraph by itself it sounds as if they can say "Ooops, we screwed up" any time they feel like it. This could be 30 years down the line when they decide to say "Ooops!".

[MyHAMP]

Herein lies the problem. Look at page 6, paragraph K:



There has to be something under basic contract law that puts a time limit on this.

If you take that paragraph by itself it sounds as if they can say "Ooops, we screwed up" any time they feel like it. This could be 30 years down the line when they decide to say "Ooops!".

Yep, the lady told me that the treasury could get involved to void the HAMP-agreement. What was news to me is that they can cancel the agreement ALTHOUGH your provided paperwork was ACCURATE.

And you are right: When is this modification really "FINAL"?

[AzGryffindor]

Obviously not - because I don't recall they gave up any of their rights.

I called them now and they verified we would get a new SPS-loan within 30 days with a monthly payment not exceeding 31% of the current income - so the payment won't go up. That fact alone doesn't give them much room to change the other conditions of the loan (APR, duration etc.) - at least not to our disadvantage.

I was also able to find out that an audit from treasury was the cause for this action. So to anybody else with a HAMP: Yours could be gone by tomorrow as well.

So I guess I needn't blame SPS - it was the treasury's decision.

Does this mean you have to send in new paycheck stubs, etc??

[MyHAMP]

Does this mean you have to send in new paycheck stubs, etc??

Fortunately, no..

One thing is interesting as well: under K it also says:

"I understand that a corrected Agreement will be provided to me and this Agreement will be void upon notice of such error. If I elect not to sign any such CORRECTED Agreement, the terms of the original Loan Documents shall continue in full force and effect (...) and will not be eligible for a modification under HAMP."

Hmm, but I won't get a new HAMP-agreement?

[AzGryffindor]

No. What that says is that if you don't sign the new/amended HAMP agreement and return it to them that you'd then be out of HAMP.

Just out of curiosity, I know our HAMP agreements all reference the original loan docs. Do you have a copy of your original docs and if so, is there any clause similar to section "K" that gives a specific timeline of how long they have if they find an error??

[jakelabry]

This is a country where written contracts have a value, right? If not...well, everybody who already received a HAMP should be very worried...

Perhaps it's value is the same as your original mortgage?

sorry didn't mean to double post - please delete moderators?

[MyHAMP]

No. What that says is that if you don't sign the new/amended HAMP agreement and return it to them that you'd then be out of HAMP.

And that's what I mean: My new agreement WON'T be a HAMP-Agreement. It will be an in-house from SPS. Now, if they apply this paragraph to void the current HAMP, aren't they required to follow the rest of this wording as well and issue a corrected HAMP instead of an in-house?

Just out of curiosity, I know our HAMP agreements all reference the original loan docs. Do you have a copy of your original docs and if so, is there any clause similar to section "K" that gives a specific timeline of how long they have if they find an error??

Well, I found my "Notice of Right to Cancel":

It's 3 business days from

1. the date of transaction
2. the date I receive the Truth in lending
3. the recept of the notice about the right to cancel itself

whatever occurs last.

[MyHAMP]

I also found a "power of attorney" to correct any typos or errors in the original loan documents which automatically terminates after 180 days.

Now, let's see what they have to offer as in-house. I'll also consider the $5K we're going to lose over the initial 5 years. If they want to offer an in-house instead of the "corrected HAMP" we are entitled to, so be it. But certainly not at our expense or disadvantage.

[goldie]

We got a call from SPS today, telling us we would receive a new mortgage-contract because we "wouldn't be approved for HAMP".

Are you kiddin' me? Half a year after our approval and making modified payments? AND although we have a written and undersigned (by the lender) agreement (see my sig)?

They told us they made "mistakes" during the process and that would entitle them to void the current agreement. I share a different POV, especially with a loan signed by both parties.

They told us we would "basically" get a similar offer but I can already tell you that if it's only a tiny little bit worse than the current deal, we won't accept it. And I do believe we are in the driver's seat now.

This is a country where written contracts have a value, right? If not...well, everybody who already received a HAMP should be very worried...

I must say, sadly I do believe this. Have you spoke to an attorney about this?

Was the mod ever executed (you received a SIGNED copy by the proper person at the bank) or recorded with the county recorder?

Bank of America has reneged on a bunch of the Countrywide loans that they had agreed to do as part of a settlement with the attorney general in California. Imagine the surprise of those poor people to be told their mods are null and void. I don't think our atty gen is doing anything about it either.

[MyHAMP]

I must say, sadly I do believe this. Have you spoke to an attorney about this?

Was the mod ever executed (you received a SIGNED copy by the proper person at the bank) or recorded with the county recorder?

Bank of America has reneged on a bunch of the Countrywide loans that they had agreed to do as part of a settlement with the attorney general in California. Imagine the surprise of those poor people to be told their mods are null and void. I don't think our atty gen is doing anything about it either.

We haven't contacted an attorney yet - these "news" were received less than 4 hours ago and before we go the legal route, we want to see what they have to offer as in-house. If it's equal to or better than what we have right now - OK. BUT if it's worse, we will challenge it. Although the mod has not been recorded, we received a fully executed and SIGNED copy (dated 11-23-2009) by SPS.

[goldie]

We haven't contacted an attorney yet - these "news" were received less than 4 hours ago and before we go the legal route, we want to see what they have to offer as in-house. If it's equal to or better than what we have right now - OK. BUT if it's worse, we will challenge it. Although the mod has not been recorded, we received a fully executed and SIGNED copy (dated 11-23-2009) by SPS.

I wonder what would happen if you recorded it? Is there any law to say you couldn't? After all, it is an executed agreement!

You're right to not fly off the handle and find out what they are up to first. Maybe it will be equal to or better (although intuition tells me otherwise). I hope I am wrong & you get something good!

[MyHAMP]

I wonder what would happen if you recorded it? Is there any law to say you couldn't? After all, it is an executed agreement!

You're right to not fly off the handle and find out what they are up to first. Maybe it will be equal to or better (although intuition tells me otherwise). I hope I am wrong & you get something good!

Well, they already said that the monthly payment won't be higher than the current 31% of the income - so I will focus on the fine-print once we receive the offer in writing.

What's really amazing is that the treasury department is damaging their already "less than perfect" record when it comes to the number of final HAMP-approvals. We are making on-time payments for half a year now and they previously approved the application. What is their motive?

[MyHAMP]

Herein lies the problem. Look at page 6, paragraph K:

That I will execute such other documents as may be reasonably necessary to either (i) correct the terms and conditions of this Agreement; or (ii) correct the terms and conditions of this Plan if an error is detected after execution of this Agreement. I understand that a corrected Agreement will be provided to me and this Agreement will be void and of no legal effect upon notice of such error. If I elect not to sign any such corrected Agreement, the terms of the original Loan Documents shall continue in full force and effect, such terms will not be modified by this Agreement, and I will not be eligible for a modification under the Home Affordable Modification program

There has to be something under basic contract law that puts a time limit on this.

If you take that paragraph by itself it sounds as if they can say "Ooops, we screwed up" any time they feel like it. This could be 30 years down the line when they decide to say "Ooops!".

BTW, what is the source of this "page 6, paragraph K"?

I'm asking because the wording in my final agreement is slightly different:

K. That I will execute such other documents as may be resonably to either (i) consumate the terms and conditions of this agreement; or (ii) correct the terms and conditions of this Plan if an error is detected after execution of this Agreement. I understand that a corrected Agreement will be provided to me and this Agreement will be void and of no legal effect upon notice of such error.

All previously mentioned conditions for HAMP are void when this contract is signed and active. That's part of the permanent agreement, too.

The question is: What "error" are they referring to? The contract itself has no "errors" like typos etc., so what do they mean by "such other documents"? I assume the documents listed under "J" - like title endorsement(s), insurance product(s) and subordination agreement(s).

The treasury is not mentioned once. The incentives neither.

This is very, very strange...

[SurfwhenUcan]

Yep, the lady told me that the treasury could get involved to void the HAMP-agreement. What was news to me is that they can cancel the agreement ALTHOUGH your provided paperwork was ACCURATE.

And you are right: When is this modification really "FINAL"?

Hi MyHamp,

It is ttrue, we are dealing with contract law, unfortunately, until final approval is approved and you notarize a new note with the new HAMP terms (and it is applied to your loan), the trial is just that and nothing more. The contract that is binding is your original Note, not their little trial agreement. These trials are a lot of smoke and mirrors in my humble opinion. Your story is the norm rather than the exception.

If you look on CNN Money you will see a couple articles that spell out the reality of the numbers. It is a fact that only 3-5 mods out of 100 succeed and become permanent. But keep on them and your Non-HAMP mod might just save your home.

[MyHAMP]

Hi MyHamp,

It is ttrue, we are dealing with contract law, unfortunately, until final approval is approved and you notarize a new note with the new HAMP terms (and it is applied to your loan), the trial is just that and nothing more. The contract that is binding is your original Note, not their little trial agreement. These trials are a lot of smoke and mirrors in my humble opinion. Your story is the norm rather than the exception.

You must have gotten me wrong - our modification IS PERMANENT (or should I say, was) since November 2009. I am NOT talking about a trial here. Our PERMANENT agreement has been fully executed by us and the servicer. The PERMANENT contract is lying right in front of me. We have been receiving modified statements, reflecting the mod, for 6 months now and paid on time.

A denial during the trial happens often - but that's not were we are.

[AzGryffindor]

BTW, what is the source of this "page 6, paragraph K"?

I'm asking because the wording in my final agreement is slightly different:

K. That I will execute such other documents as may be resonably to either (i) consumate the terms and conditions of this agreement; or (ii) correct the terms and conditions of this Plan if an error is detected after execution of this Agreement. I understand that a corrected Agreement will be provided to me and this Agreement will be void and of no legal effect upon notice of such error.

All previously mentioned conditions for HAMP are void when this contract is signed and active. That's part of the permanent agreement, too.

The question is: What "error" are they referring to? The contract itself has no "errors" like typos etc., so what do they mean by "such other documents"? I assume the documents listed under "J" - like title endorsement(s), insurance product(s) and subordination agreement(s).

The treasury is not mentioned once. The incentives neither.

This is very, very strange...

It's directly from my HAMP Perm Mod Agreement.

I'm curious as to why you're saying the mod they'll be sending you won't be a HAMP mod. Did they tell you they had to change it to an in-house mod for some reason??

[MyHAMP]

It's directly from my HAMP Perm Mod Agreement.

I'm curious as to why you're saying the mod they'll be sending you won't be a HAMP mod. Did they tell you they had to change it to an in-house mod for some reason??

I guess all of a sudden, treasury came to the conclusion that we don't qualify for HAMP (SPS mentioned something about the NPV) although that makes no sense to me. They ran that test at least twice and SPS verified today that we met all requirements and passed that test. Treasury also gave their OK before the agreement was executed. How they came to this different result half a year later is a mystery to me.

And I share the opinion that "K." is limited to errors in "such documents" - not the entire HAMP-process itself. I have no agreement with the treasury and all supplied documentation has always been accurate. The permanent agreement itself is free of errors. Frankly, I don't see any clause in my agreement that entitles SPS to cancel OUR mortgage due to the treasury department.

And if they want to apply "K.", they have to apply it completely - including the "corrected HAMP"-agreement. And if they need to change it to an in-house because they are unable to provide a HAMP, the conditions mustn't be worse (I'm still thinking of the $5K which I won't be willing to give up. I don't care who is going to pay these $5K).

Looking at the wording in our agreement under "K.", it seems that I'm entitled to "consumate" the current agreement...

The way K. is written, it seems to me that the BORROWER is given a choice in regards to said "such documents" (you either accept the current agreement or provide the documents to have it corrected). I don't see ANY connection between "K." and the treasury.

[SurfwhenUcan]

I guess all of a sudden, treasury came to the conclusion that we don't qualify for HAMP (SPS mentioned something about the NPV) although that makes no sense to me. They ran that test at least twice and SPS verified today that we met all requirements and passed that test. Treasury also gave their OK before the agreement was executed. How they came to this different result half a year later is a mystery to me.

And I share the opinion that "K." is limited to errors in "such documents" - not the entire HAMP-process itself. I have no agreement with the treasury and all supplied documentation has always been accurate. The permanent agreement itself is free of errors. Frankly, I don't see any clause in my agreement that entitles SPS to cancel OUR mortgage due to the treasury department.

And if they want to apply "K.", they have to apply it completely - including the "corrected HAMP"-agreement. And if they need to change it to an in-house because they are unable to provide a HAMP, the conditions mustn't be worse (I'm still thinking of the $5K which I won't be willing to give up. I don't care who is going to pay these $5K).

Looking at the wording in our agreement under "K.", it seems that I'm entitled to "consumate" the current agreement...

The way K. is written, it seems to me that the BORROWER is given a choice in regards to said "such documents" (you either accept the current agreement or provide the documents to have it corrected). I don't see ANY connection between "K." and the treasury.

Check out this article in the LA Times yesterday - it talks about cancellation of permanent modifications. Looks like they can and do cancel the permanent ones too.

Permanent home-loan modifications under Obama program jump 30% in April - Los Angeles Times

[MyHAMP]

Check out this article in the LA Times yesterday - it talks about cancellation of permanent modifications. Looks like they can and do cancel the permanent ones too.

Permanent home-loan modifications under Obama program jump 30% in April - Los Angeles Times

Yes, those are the 0.9% of cancelled permanent mods. But here's what the treasury is saying:

Those mods were cancelled DUE TO NON-PAYMENT of the borrower. We, however, paid on time and if those mods are cancelled due to non-payment, they are cancelled by the SERVICER. I have yet to see a report on cancelled permanent mods by the TREASURY.

Servicers Complete 170,000 Permanent HAMP Mods

"Of modifications that have converted to permanent status, the Treasury reports that 0.9 percent have been canceled, due to the borrower’s failure to fulfill the payment obligations."

[MyHAMP]

Or check out this one:

"Canceled permanent modifications are up too. Through April, servicers canceled 3,744 permanent modifications since HAMP started, up from 2,879 the month before. A spokesperson for the Treasury said servicers cancel permanent modifications only when the borrower misses a payment, since the documentation is already in for the conversion from a trial period."

Canceled HAMP Trials Jump 80% in April HousingWire

Oh, really, "spokesperson for the Treasury"?

[SurfwhenUcan]

Or check out this one:

"Canceled permanent modifications are up too. Through April, servicers canceled 3,744 permanent modifications since HAMP started, up from 2,879 the month before. A spokesperson for the Treasury said servicers cancel permanent modifications only when the borrower misses a payment, since the documentation is already in for the conversion from a trial period."

Canceled HAMP Trials Jump 80% in April HousingWire

Oh, really, "spokesperson for the Treasury"?

Try looking up Appeals Process Treasury HAMP Denials - I found they don't have an appeals process for denial of permanent mods. Maybe escalate this to your congressman and senator, with a well-documented case study - seems there is some scrutiny of the treasury's practices going on at that level. Send your case return receipt and call them every day about it. You might be able to stick it to the treasury.

[MyHAMP]

Try looking up Appeals Process Treasury HAMP Denials - I found they don't have an appeals process for denial of permanent mods. Maybe escalate this to your congressman and senator, with a well-documented case study - seems there is some scrutiny of the treasury's practices going on at that level. Send your case return receipt and call them every day about it. You might be able to stick it to the treasury.

Thanks for the advice - I'll keep that option in mind!

The next (up to 30) days will be a nailbiter - I'm really interested in seeing the terms of the in-house mod and how they present the reson for their action IN WRITING. As soon as I got that documentation, I'm going to scan and post that as well.

[hope67]

OMG!!! MyHamp! This is totally OUTRAGEOUS and scary!

After several months of a signed perm mod the Treasury is now saying that you do not qualify for HAMP!!!

[MyHAMP]

OMG!!! MyHamp! This is totally OUTRAGEOUS and scary!

After several months of a signed perm mod the Treasury is now saying that you do not qualify for HAMP!!!

Interesting, huh?

But do I have an agreement with the Treasury? I don't think so....
Legally, this scenario is VERY interesting. BTW, that's the same Treasury stating that the permanent mods are cancelled due to non-payment of the borrower. I would laugh out loud if it wouldn't be so sad.

I found another thread where that happened as well - also with SPS. Could it be they denied it because SPS kept the interest-rate at 7.25%? I'm just looking for a reason. I can't imagine Treasury is interested in cancelling permanent mods as long as the supplied documentation was accurate.

[hope67]

Interesting, huh?

But do I have an agreement with the Treasury? I don't think so....
Legally, this scenario is VERY interesting. BTW, that's the same Treasury stating that the permanent mods are cancelled due to non-payment of the borrower. I would laugh out loud if it wouldn't be so sad.

I found another thread where that happened as well - also with SPS. Could it be they denied it because SPS kept the interest-rate at 7.25%? I'm just looking for a reason. I can't imagine Treasury is interested in cancelling permanent mods as long as the supplied documentation was accurate.

MyHAMP, I'm so saddened by this .

Could it be due to the amount of the principal they had to forbear to reach the 31% of the gross income payment?

[hope67]

As far as I remember, according to HAMP guidelines, they have to start by lowering the interest rate to 2%, if this didn't work, then they have to extend the loan term to 40 years, if this didn't work then they have to forbear principal to a certain limit as I recall.

[MyHAMP]

MyHAMP, I'm so saddened by this .

Could it be due to the amount of the principal they had to forbear to reach the 31% of the gross income payment?

Right now, I have no idea. The lady from SPS verified that they ran the NPV twice and we passed. SPS SAYS that the mod was absolutely OK in their eyes. The amount they had to forbear in relation to the value - as far as I recall - is not limited by the guidelines on a non-GSE loan. Only SPS would have had the right to deny the application based on that. But 6 months after the execution...SPS was actually done with my case.

I was thinking about the APR because the HAMP performance-reports are stating that 100% received a reduction in APR - we didn't. So that's why I think that Treasury actually rejected SPS's 7.25%-approach rather than our application itself. And if the investor doesn't allow a lower APR (who knows?), a HAMP could not be achieved. Now they will provide us with an in-house.

The full potential of this screwed up situation is in the wording of the final agreement. Even if they want to classify this situation as "error", the agreement says we will receive a corrected Agreement and IF we DON'T accept this agreement, we won't be eligible for HAMP. Hmm, but the in-house they are going to offer won't be a HAMP in the first place which represents a conflict and potential breach of contract as well.

Also, "errors" must be determined and reported in a timely manner. Is half a year "timely"? I have my doubts. Somebody screwed up - but certainly not me.

[MyHAMP]

As far as I remember, according to HAMP guidelines, they have to start by lowering the interest rate to 2%, if this didn't work, then they have to extend the loan term to 40 years, if this didn't work then they have to forbear principal to a certain limit as I recall.

Exactly. SPS doesn't like to change their APRs - maybe that's what the Treasury didn't like...

[hope67]

Exactly. SPS doesn't like to change their APRs - maybe that's what the Treasury didn't like...

This is so OUTRAGEOUS!! It's not your fault!

I just bumped your original thread where you mentioned your terms, I did mention to you then that they didn't follow the waterfall steps to reach the target payment (31% of the gross income)!

[MyHAMP]

This is so OUTRAGEOUS!! It's not your fault!

I just bumped your original thread where you mentioned your terms, I did mention to you then that they didn't follow the waterfall steps to reach the target payment (31% of the gross income)!

Thanks! I do think we are entitled to know the reason why the Treasury rejected the mod during the audit. SPS was fast talking about "your income is too low" and during the second call, all of a sudden it was the NPV. That smells very fishy and I could bet SPS didn't follow one of the rules.

And if the Treasury is behind this, I should be entitled to get a copy of the documentation and reason why they came to this conclusion. I think they can't keep that information confidential if they want to cancel an executed agreement. And once we got that documentation, we'll see who is to blame.

BTW, the APR-theory is very likely. At the beginning of the application-process, all the Treasury knows are the income-numbers and the new monthly payments - but they don't know the permanent APR. Maybe this explains the initial approval. SPS tried to get slip by - and got CAUGHT!

[hope67]

Thanks! I do think we are entitled to know the reason why the Treasury rejected the mod during the audit. SPS was fast talking about "your income is too low" and during the second call, all of a sudden it was the NPV. That smells very fishy and I could bet SPS didn't follow one of the rules.

And if the Treasury is behind this, I should be entitled to get a copy of the documentation and reason why they came to this conclusion. I think they can't keep that information confidential if they want to cancel an executed agreement. And once we got that documentation, we'll see who is to blame.

BTW, the APR-theory is very likely. At the beginning of the application-process, all the Treasury knows are the income-numbers and the new monthly payments - but they don't know the permanent APR. Maybe this explains the initial approval. SPS tried to get slip by - and got CAUGHT!

You shouldn't be penalized for their mistake or possibly greed! SPS should be the one absorbing the brunt of this problem.

You know what MyHAMP!! Maybe you will end up with a 2% interest rate, you will pay off your loan much quicker because more money of your payment will go towards your principal!

[MyHAMP]

You shouldn't be penalized for their mistake or possibly greed! SPS should be the one absorbing the brunt of this problem.

You know what MyHAMP!! Maybe you will end up with a 2% interest rate, you will pay off your loan much quicker because more money of your payment will go towards your principal!

Hmm, I doubt it. If SPS would be allowed to go that low (allowed by the investor), they would probably collect the incentives rather than going the in-house route. But if they have to stick to these 7.25%, HAMP is out of reach and they have to go in-house. Would be interesting to know if that happened by accident or intentionally. I'd say intentionally.

But we won't pay additional fees or accept a higher principal balance - just because THEY blew it. We will then put this country's contract-law to the test.

[AzGryffindor]

I wouldn't accept what your servicer is telling you as being the truth.

It's very possible the investor rejected the mod. I didn't know you were non-GSE. I'm surprised you didn't get an in-house mod to begin with.

BUT....you have a signed valid contract in your hands. Considering the amount of time that has passed I'd think that the law would be on your side. They've had plenty of time to find this "error".

Have you tried calling the Homeowner's Hope line (the one listed on the MHA website) to see if they can offer any assistance? What about the Sigtarp compliance line?

[MyHAMP]

I wouldn't accept what your servicer is telling you as being the truth.

It's very possible the investor rejected the mod. I didn't know you were non-GSE. I'm surprised you didn't get an in-house mod to begin with.

BUT....you have a signed valid contract in your hands. Considering the amount of time that has passed I'd think that the law would be on your side. They've had plenty of time to find this "error".

Have you tried calling the Homeowner's Hope line (the one listed on the MHA website) to see if they can offer any assistance? What about the Sigtarp compliance line?

You are right - I don't trust the servicer. I called 1-888-995-HOPE but the guy NEVER heard of a revoked permanent mod before and was telling me that "since you received the permanent documents, it's non of our business any more". Sigtarp, however, might be an option.

[llbkel66]

i just caught this thread....this is what i posted about a month ago(?)how does anyone know if it is the tres. or SPS, all i know is i owe more cuz of these 4 months of "permanent" payments than i did before

[MyHAMP]

all i know is i owe more cuz of these 4 months of "permanent" payments than i did before

And all I know is that I won't accept such kind of "penalty" due to somebody else's fault..