Loan Sold Back & Forth Between TaylorBeanWhitaker and IndymacBank and Mod Lost in the Process

[tanja53]

My mortgage was with TBW up to the middle of June 2007 when it was sold to Indymac Bank.
I never knew or heard of that a loan could be sold. Anyway it was.
About the same time the family started to feel the damage of an unemployment . Caused by A broken back and a trial that a lousey that went totally wrong. I was now the sole provider for 4 people.
But that is a totally another story.
I went to Indymac Bank to get some cash out from equity , I had a lot in the house at that time. Talked to 2 different people at the bank and both had various reasons for saying no. I turned outside Indymac for help. That turned out to be a disaster. See my earlier thread this month.
In late nov. early dec. a man called Randy called , he presented himself as working for Indymac Bank helping people that had run into problems. He got my info and sent it in to the bank.
In tjhe middle of dec. I had still not heard anything back so I gave randy a call. he told me that it could take up to 3-4 weeks.
I still didn't hear anything back. So around the new year i wrote a long email to the vice president of Indymac Bank. His name is Michael.
A few days later I recived a call from Krisina at Indymac. She was contacting me on behalf of Michael , the vice president.
I was told that my loan had been bought back by TBW in oct. and there was nothing Indymac could do. And that I should talk to TBW since the loan was with them.
I called TBW and was told that the loan was kind in between but they would have all the paper work by the 25 of Jan.2008. I was also told to get in touch with the loss mitigation dep. and tell my story. I did in an emailn, since I prefer, from last experience, to have it in writting.
I recived a letter from kristina at Indymac confirming everything she had told me.
A few weeks later I recived another letter from Indymac Bank stating that the loan would be at TBW on the 25 of Jan.
If I would have any questions about my loan I was told to call Indymac up to that date.
Anyway after a secound email to TBW things are finally moving.
But now I was told that they had the loan the 4 of. Feb. The day I also recived in the mail from Indymac Bank that it was the 4 th. of Feb.
My question is who had the loan from oct 2007 - til 4 th of Feb. 2008 ?
Since according to both banks that the other had it.
I also asked TBW what happened to my loan modification that was going on with Indymac bank. They told me that stopped when they got the oan since they don't have to do anything. But in the same time I am told I am late. How can I be late if they don't take over the loan modification procces. Are they selective in what they want to do.
The whole story is very confusing. One good thing I have all the proof in paper work.

My first question is did you send Randy anything, money, deed, anything at all, chances are that he did not work for IndyMac bank.

Second is that during the sale on a non-preforming loan, which I assume that at the time TBW was buying the loan back from IndyMac the owner is the party to whom the Deed of Trust was assigned and then ownership switches back to the original owner TBW when the Assignment is re-recorded in their name.

The fact that no one could tell you anything was a function of set up of the loan in the computer system which tends to lag. All in all TBW appears to repurchased the loan for EPD - early payment default in a sale transaction between lenders. You should have received a letter from each servicer/owner/lender at the time the loan was sold telling you where to make you payments and who the new servicer was. This is required by RESPA on all sale and transfers of servicing involving mortgage loans.

Fact TBW used an Assignment of the Deed of Trust to IndyMac at the initial sale, IndyMac used an Assignment of the Deed of Trust on the repurchase of the loan by TBW and the computer systems were not caught up as is often the case in these matters. There is nothing out of kilter on this as it is common and that is why the RESPA letters are sent to the borrower to notify of sale to try and avoid the questions as to who is servicing what.

There is really nothing selective about this, the agreements between the lenders are very simple if the loan does not preform in the early time that they buy it from one another, then back it goes to the original lender/servicer. That is how it works.

Now you need to apply for modification again with TBW immediately, the issues you got caught in were no abnormal, but certainly not timely for you and your situation. So....call TBW and restart the modification process again as to you circumstances and get the ball rolling with them. You must be proactive and focused and rebegin the modification process with TBW right away.

Again there was nothing fishy about the transaction between the two lenders, now if they did not send the required RESPA transfer of servicing letters to you regarding the transfer of the loan from one to another there is a violation of RESPA and that should be reported to HUD, FTC and in Indymac's case FSLIC, TBW - report to FTC and HUD. However if I read this correctly you were notified of the transfer and due to the computers catching up the loan was in no man's land for a while. Which is why the letters are sent out.

[tanja53]

Originally Posted by Poppy

My first question is did you send Randy anything, money, deed, anything at all, chances are that he did not work for IndyMac bank.

Second is that during the sale on a non-preforming loan, which I assume that at the time TBW was buying the loan back from IndyMac the owner is the party to whom the Deed of Trust was assigned and then ownership switches back to the original owner TBW when the Assignment is re-recorded in their name.

The fact that no one could tell you anything was a function of set up of the loan in the computer system which tends to lag. All in all TBW appears to repurchased the loan for EPD - early payment default in a sale transaction between lenders. You should have received a letter from each servicer/owner/lender at the time the loan was sold telling you where to make you payments and who the new servicer was. This is required by RESPA on all sale and transfers of servicing involving mortgage loans.

Fact TBW used an Assignment of the Deed of Trust to IndyMac at the initial sale, IndyMac used an Assignment of the Deed of Trust on the repurchase of the loan by TBW and the computer systems were not caught up as is often the case in these matters. There is nothing out of kilter on this as it is common and that is why the RESPA letters are sent to the borrower to notify of sale to try and avoid the questions as to who is servicing what.

There is really nothing selective about this, the agreements between the lenders are very simple if the loan does not preform in the early time that they buy it from one another, then back it goes to the original lender/servicer. That is how it works.

Now you need to apply for modification again with TBW immediately, the issues you got caught in were no abnormal, but certainly not timely for you and your situation. So....call TBW and restart the modification process again as to you circumstances and get the ball rolling with them. You must be proactive and focused and rebegin the modification process with TBW right away.

Again there was nothing fishy about the transaction between the two lenders, now if they did not send the required RESPA transfer of servicing letters to you regarding the transfer of the loan from one to another there is a violation of RESPA and that should be reported to HUD, FTC and in Indymac's case FSLIC, TBW - report to FTC and HUD. However if I read this correctly you were notified of the transfer and due to the computers catching up the loan was in no man's land for a while. Which is why the letters are sent out.

Thank you for your reply Poppy.
No I din't send randy any money or the other things you mentioned.
Only my income from Europe. I still have his info.
I will look into the things youy said. I do know that the info from TBW din't get here until sometimes in Feb. Way after the 4 th.

If the income is from off shore as we have posted before it is not considered stable or ongoing and as such will not be usable in the body of the consideration for modification. We addressed this on another thread....the income is not in the realm of income that is acceptable in todays underwriting world. Just how a TBW loan was achieved with off shore income is beyond me since they never had a program in 2007 that would have allowed it. I have underwritten enough of their product to know that.

You are going to need to provide evidence of income from the states in order for a modification to be done....I also suspect that if this file was submitted for underwriting and all you had when you made the loan request was off shore income then there was a full audit of the loan at IndyMac and there were irregularities discovered and the file was shipped back to TBW.....this repurchase may have been driven by something other than EPD issues. When this loan was originated was there on shore income in the household to support the request and avail them the income from an acceptable source? Off shore income is not acceptable in just about every program available in the time frame that you obtained this loan.

[tanja53]

[QUOTE=Poppy;10364]My first question is did you send Randy anything, money, deed, anything at all, chances are that he did not work for IndyMac bank.

Second is that during the sale on a non-preforming loan, which I assume that at the time TBW was buying the loan back from IndyMac the owner is the party to whom the Deed of Trust was assigned and then ownership switches back to the original owner TBW when the Assignment is re-recorded in their name.

The fact that no one could tell you anything was a function of set up of the loan in the computer system which tends to lag. All in all TBW appears to repurchased the loan for EPD - early payment default in a sale transaction between lenders. You should have received a letter from each servicer/owner/lender at the time the loan was sold telling you where to make you payments and who the new servicer was. This is required by RESPA on all sale and transfers of servicing involving mortgage loans.

Fact TBW used an Assignment of the Deed of Trust to IndyMac at the initial sale, IndyMac used an Assignment of the Deed of Trust on the repurchase of the loan by TBW and the computer systems were not caught up as is often the case in these matters. There is nothing out of kilter on this as it is common and that is why the RESPA letters are sent to the borrower to notify of sale to try and avoid the questions as to who is servicing what.

There is really nothing selective about this, the agreements between the lenders are very simple if the loan does not preform in the early time that they buy it from one another, then back it goes to the original lender/servicer. That is how it works.

Now you need to apply for modification again with TBW immediately, the issues you got caught in were no abnormal, but certainly not timely for you and your situation. So....call TBW and restart the modification process again as to you circumstances and get the ball rolling with them. You must be proactive and focused and rebegin the modification process with TBW right away.

Again there was nothing fishy about the transaction between the two lenders, now if they did not send the required RESPA transfer of servicing letters to you regarding the transfer of the loan from one to another there is a violation of RESPA and that should be reported to HUD, FTC and in Indymac's case FSLIC, TBW - report to FTC and HUD. However if I read this correctly you were notified of the transfer and due to the computers catching up the loan was in no man's land for a while. Which is why the letters are sent out.[/QU

The letter about the loan from Indymac bank came around the 15 of Jan.
The letter from TBW came around the 12 of Feb.
The letter from Kristina ,customer service advocate, came around the middle of Jan. 2008.
And in between nobody wanted or did anything.

The loan servicing letters appear to be issued in the appropriate time frames, the need to modify and the request to modify is requested by you, during the time the loan was forced into repurchase the modification had to go on hold with IndyMac. The loan was repurchased I am suspecting due to QA problems and then the issue of modification must be addressed separately with TBW.

If this is a QA question, my question still stands "was there income from an onshore source at the time the loan was originated, and just exactly what month and year was it originated....."

TBW never in my experience had a program that allowed for 100% or any percent for that matter of offshore income....ever.

During the in between times of the repurchase there was nothing anyone could do from any side of the houses, IndyMac or TBW, the loan was in transit being repurchased for what ever reason. This is not out of the ordinary and to the best of my information from your posts, nothing wrong was done in the process of this transfer. You received letters from the parties as to the progress of the transfer of servicing, they are not required by regulation or law to transfer the modification or to even consider the modification, that is an accommodation that they offer to try and maintain the integrity of the loan, regardless of whom the servicer is.

I suspect that you have some issues other than modification with this loan and that is the derivation of income....please let me know when this loan was originated, type of loan, ARM, Option ARM (TBW did not do those really), Fixed Rate, I/O.....

Sometime from the date of the request of the modification from you and the December/January time frame this loan was seriously QA'd.... They are not required to work on the modification, again that is an accommodation to you and to themselves to try an obtain a resolvable solution to possible failure of the loan. This loan was repurchased for irregularities in the loan.

[tanja53]

Originally Posted by Poppy

The loan servicing letters appear to be issued in the appropriate time frames, the need to modify and the request to modify is requested by you, during the time the loan was forced into repurchase the modification had to go on hold with IndyMac. The loan was repurchased I am suspecting due to QA problems and then the issue of modification must be addressed separately with TBW.

If this is a QA question, my question still stands "was there income from an onshore source at the time the loan was originated, and just exactly what month and year was it originated....."

TBW never in my experience had a program that allowed for 100% or any percent for that matter of offshore income....ever.

During the in between times of the repurchase there was nothing anyone could do from any side of the houses, IndyMac or TBW, the loan was in transit being repurchased for what ever reason. This is not out of the ordinary and to the best of my information from your posts, nothing wrong was done in the process of this transfer. You received letters from the parties as to the progress of the transfer of servicing, they are not required by regulation or law to transfer the modification or to even consider the modification, that is an accommodation that they offer to try and maintain the integrity of the loan, regardless of whom the servicer is.

I suspect that you have some issues other than modification with this loan and that is the derivation of income....please let me know when this loan was originated, type of loan, ARM, Option ARM (TBW did not do those really), Fixed Rate, I/O.....

Sometime from the date of the request of the modification from you and the December/January time frame this loan was seriously QA'd.... They are not required to work on the modification, again that is an accommodation to you and to themselves to try an obtain a resolvable solution to possible failure of the loan. This loan was repurchased for irregularities in the loan.

Thank you.Could you please explain what you mean by "Sometimes from the date..........this loan seriously QA'd"? Didn't understand it.
My loan is fixed rate .

[tanja53]

Originally Posted by Poppy

The loan servicing letters appear to be issued in the appropriate time frames, the need to modify and the request to modify is requested by you, during the time the loan was forced into repurchase the modification had to go on hold with IndyMac. The loan was repurchased I am suspecting due to QA problems and then the issue of modification must be addressed separately with TBW.

If this is a QA question, my question still stands "was there income from an onshore source at the time the loan was originated, and just exactly what month and year was it originated....."

TBW never in my experience had a program that allowed for 100% or any percent for that matter of offshore income....ever.

During the in between times of the repurchase there was nothing anyone could do from any side of the houses, IndyMac or TBW, the loan was in transit being repurchased for what ever reason. This is not out of the ordinary and to the best of my information from your posts, nothing wrong was done in the process of this transfer. You received letters from the parties as to the progress of the transfer of servicing, they are not required by regulation or law to transfer the modification or to even consider the modification, that is an accommodation that they offer to try and maintain the integrity of the loan, regardless of whom the servicer is.

I suspect that you have some issues other than modification with this loan and that is the derivation of income....please let me know when this loan was originated, type of loan, ARM, Option ARM (TBW did not do those really), Fixed Rate, I/O.....

Sometime from the date of the request of the modification from you and the December/January time frame this loan was seriously QA'd.... They are not required to work on the modification, again that is an accommodation to you and to themselves to try an obtain a resolvable solution to possible failure of the loan. This loan was repurchased for irregularities in the loan.

Yes the income was from an offshore income. A familly buisness. And it is from Jan 2007. I have owned my home since nov. 2002.

Then you problem is with QA and there was no program at that time with TBW that allowed for offshore income to be used as stable, ongoing income to support the request. I was underwriting TBW at that time and had no programs available through them to facilitate off shore income....

This is a QA problem and as such will refer back to TBW from IndyMac, TBW is now the proud owner of an unsalable loan. You need to contact TBW and ascertain what they can do to help you with the modification process. I suspect that with offshore income the process will be very difficult as it is not income that can be accepted in any program new or modified.

[tanja53]

Originally Posted by Poppy

Then you problem is with QA and there was no program at that time with TBW that allowed for offshore income to be used as stable, ongoing income to support the request. I was underwriting TBW at that time and had no programs available through them to facilitate off shore income....

This is a QA problem and as such will refer back to TBW from IndyMac, TBW is now the proud owner of an unsalable loan. You need to contact TBW and ascertain what they can do to help you with the modification process. I suspect that with offshore income the process will be very difficult as it is not income that can be accepted in any program new or modified.

So are you saying that even if I have had this house for over 5 years without one single problem. And that i am back on the track again in april with money that they can tell me no. That is strange.My money is for a family buisness that I do from home.I have already talked to TBW and they have told me that they will work with me.

Is the source of funds for the business state side? If so then not a problem, however if it is from funds from off shore there may be problems, the source of funds from work have to be state side i.e. American Dollars and derived from income in the US. If the work is done from home and you can substantiate the funds in American Dollars on bank statements and income tax returns then you should be fine, otherwise if they are off shore funds that directly transfer to the bank account here there are issues that have to be addressed for stability reasons....it is the derivation of funds...

Example....your income is derived from off shore funds from an off shore business and you do not report on US Tax returns....no can do, the funds are not considered stable.

Example...your income is derived from a mixture of on shore and off shore funds that come in American Dollars and reported on US Tax Returns...that is OK with 2 year history stable income and can be used in consideration of the modification.

Example....you income is derived from sources that are considered unfriendly to the US, regardless of whether Tax Returns or not can not use income...ie Iran is not an acceptable source of funds for income as far as the US lenders are concerned....do not want to offend anyone, but those are OFAC rules. The government made that one up, not me.

[tanja53]

Originally Posted by Poppy

Is the source of funds for the business state side? If so then not a problem, however if it is from funds from off shore there may be problems, the source of funds from work have to be state side i.e. American Dollars and derived from income in the US. If the work is done from home and you can substantiate the funds in American Dollars on bank statements and income tax returns then you should be fine, otherwise if they are off shore funds that directly transfer to the bank account here there are issues that have to be addressed for stability reasons....it is the derivation of funds...

Example....your income is derived from off shore funds from an off shore business and you do not report on US Tax returns....no can do, the funds are not considered stable.

Example...your income is derived from a mixture of on shore and off shore funds that come in American Dollars and reported on US Tax Returns...that is OK with 2 year history stable income and can be used in consideration of the modification.

Example....you income is derived from sources that are considered unfriendly to the US, regardless of whether Tax Returns or not can not use income...ie Iran is not an acceptable source of funds for income as far as the US lenders are concerned....do not want to offend anyone, but those are OFAC rules. The government made that one up, not me.

I pay taxes on this in sweden.
I have had it since 1988.
It is first in swedish crowns to my swedish bank account. Afer that I have wired in USA dollars into my american account.

That would not be acceptable income in my end of the world as far as underwriting is concerned it is not considered stable income and can not be used as stable income as you can not prove income in the US by the forms of proof of income as acceptable to underwriting standards.

Additionally the loan was procured under probably less than reasonable documentation and as such....you need to contact TBW and explain your source of derivation for income, it is not acceptable on front end underwriting and we would not be able to have approved that loan in early 2007. Frankly I doubt that it is acceptable for the purposes of modification either, it would not be considered stable income and the source is off shore.

That is why the loan is back with TBW, there is misrepresentation in the loan and that information was determined by QA analysis of the loan by all parties.

There are serious problems with the loan and there are more than likely some very concerned people as regards the origination of this loan and how the income was presented in the first place as it is not considered stable for the source of income to allow a supported decision of approval.

[tanja53]

Originally Posted by Poppy

That would not be acceptable income in my end of the world as far as underwriting is concerned it is not considered stable income and can not be used as stable income as you can not prove income in the US by the forms of proof of income as acceptable to underwriting standards.

Additionally the loan was procured under probably less than reasonable documentation and as such....you need to contact TBW and explain your source of derivation for income, it is not acceptable on front end underwriting and we would not be able to have approved that loan in early 2007. Frankly I doubt that it is acceptable for the purposes of modification either, it would not be considered stable income and the source is off shore.

That is why the loan is back with TBW, there is misrepresentation in the loan and that information was determined by QA analysis of the loan by all parties.

There are serious problems with the loan and there are more than likely some very concerned people as regards the origination of this loan and how the income was presented in the first place as it is not considered stable for the source of income to allow a supported decision of approval.

TBW has knows the story already I have talked to them.
And since I am back paying my mortgage again i really can't see that they would denie me.
Can they get me trown out of my home?
Sounds a bit strange since I have lived here for a long time.

They would be the loosers since the market has dropped and the house wouldn't even be sold to cover the mortgage.

If there is confirmed misrepresentation in the loan, then they have the right to consider their alternatives. I have not seen the loan to determine if there is that situation, regardless, they are in the drivers seat on the loan and will make a determination predicated on the facts and their ability to justify what would be in their best interests for the size and type of credit that is involved.

The income is something that you may have told them about, but the underwriter who makes the final decision on this is not necessarily the party that you spoke with. The underwriters do not speak to the customers and make their decisions after all of the facts have been gathered.

I do have a fairly good idea as to why the loan was forced to be repurchased and they are well within their rights if there are problems with the loan to make decisions as they see fit.

[tanja53]

Originally Posted by Poppy

If there is confirmed misrepresentation in the loan, then they have the right to consider their alternatives. I have not seen the loan to determine if there is that situation, regardless, they are in the drivers seat on the loan and will make a determination predicated on the facts and their ability to justify what would be in their best interests for the size and type of credit that is involved.

The income is something that you may have told them about, but the underwriter who makes the final decision on this is not necessarily the party that you spoke with. The underwriters do not speak to the customers and make their decisions after all of the facts have been gathered.

I do have a fairly good idea as to why the loan was forced to be repurchased and they are well within their rights if there are problems with the loan to make decisions as they see fit.

I do thank you for your replys
However I have a hard time seeing them to loose cause that they "might " now decided that they don't like my paperwork.
I am way to old for that kind of things.
I have talked to them and they want to work it out.
Since I have proof that i have money coming in and it is stable.
If not they have to take a 100.000 $ loss. i that would be kind of stupid wouldn't it.

[tanja53]

And no one has ever questioned my income before.
So all this about offhsore income and how it is looked at is all new to me.
And it does make me very concerned.
But since I have not done sanything wrong I am not worried. And if I can't deal with on my own I get a laywer.

Back on your other post this was trust income, now it is off shore business income....the fact of the matter is that there is most likely material misrepresentation in the file, and the income issue still stands as it did on the other postings. The income is not considered stable for use in the lending process for Agency loans. You must have a US Tax return and derive your income for on shore sources, whatever they may be.

You are declaring income from this source, that source....you might want to take a long hard look at the reality. If they determine that there is material misrepresentation and it is egregious enough to cause the loan to be unsalable, they can and will declare the loan due and payable in full.

I again do not know the content of the file and and can only guess, but right now they are taking some fairly hard line stances on egregious confirmed misrepresentation of material facts in the body of loan files that compelled the underwriter to approve the loan. This appeared to be a fixed rate Agency Loan and the final decision is up to FNMA or FHLMC as to how TBW decides to handle the situation. Again if TBW decides to shelve the loan and modify, then fine, that is their decision, however my advice is to be totally upfront with TBW through this process, very upfront.

[tanja53]

Originally Posted by Poppy

Back on your other post this was trust income, now it is off shore business income....the fact of the matter is that there is most likely material misrepresentation in the file, and the income issue still stands as it did on the other postings. The income is not considered stable for use in the lending process for Agency loans. You must have a US Tax return and derive your income for on shore sources, whatever they may be.

You are declaring income from this source, that source....you might want to take a long hard look at the reality. If they determine that there is material misrepresentation and it is egregious enough to cause the loan to be unsalable, they can and will declare the loan due and payable in full.

I again do not know the content of the file and and can only guess, but right now they are taking some fairly hard line stances on egregious confirmed misrepresentation of material facts in the body of loan files that compelled the underwriter to approve the loan. This appeared to be a fixed rate Agency Loan and the final decision is up to FNMA or FHLMC as to how TBW decides to handle the situation. Again if TBW decides to shelve the loan and modify, then fine, that is their decision, however my advice is to be totally upfront with TBW through this process, very upfront.

Poppy. The income is offshore income from a trustfund in/and a familly buissness.
I have been told that in USA it could be considered either.
And in todays market the loan wouldn't be payble in full. My home value has dropped way over $ 100.000 since last summer.
in fact one of my neighbors, I live in a townhome community, had to sell their house for almost nothing to get out.
So if i would go for that price my house has gone down $ 180,000 since last summer.
So I guess I just have to hope that they are not that desperate thay they will rather loose all that money but instead work with me.
Thank you Poppy

Look I do not know how the loan was originated, who originated it and how the income was presented at the time of underwriting.....I would suspect that someone did not represent the income properly, ie broker, loan officer, etc...you may want to check on that. Your problem is not that you do not have income it is that it is unacceptable to the system, that is just how the underwriting guidelines work and have for years. Unless there was a program that allowed off shore income, there are none that I am aware of presently.

So, having said all of that you should as a reasonable person determine just who did what in the body of this file at the time of origination and presentation to the Lender. The lender is not at fault, they used information in the file to make a decision, if that information was flawed then there needs to be some accountability to the party that may have not presented properly.

The request for modification triggered a QA audit of the file due to any number of reasons, as such the payments became delinquent prior to the end of 12 months, that is a huge red flag for the lenders, we are very sensitive to that, like real sensitive. This is a fixed rate Agency Loan, if it were me, I would be very curious to see just what happened to protect myself in this situation. You have a problem that requires information as to who did what and when and how at the time the loan was originated.

[Andrew]

Poppy, correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't the borrower be liable for the whole amount if loan is called and the deficiency after the foreclosure since their was fraud on the borrowers end?

[tanja53]

Originally Posted by Andrew Panessa

Poppy, correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't the borrower be liable for the whole amount if loan is called and the deficiency after the foreclosure since their was fraud on the borrowers end?

Fraud??? I have not commited any fraud.
And the house is not in forclosure.
I don't know where you got that from.
And no I am not that late either on my payments.

[Andrew]

No, i didn't say that was you. It was a just a hypothetical question, Because in one of your posts you were saying i don't think they can call the loan payable in full since you owe 100k less. But in-fact they can if they look at the loan application and see something that isn't peachy. Who did your a loan a broker? And if so how was the income stated on the loan application?

[tanja53]

And one more thing about fraud.
All the paper work that I submitted back in 2002 was checked out and approved.
I take it very seriously when someone accuse me of lying and fraud.
I am not that kind of a person.

[Andrew]

I never said you did fraud. I was just replying to Poppy's post on here and the post that you said about calling the loan due.