SENT VIA EMAIL AND FACSIMILE – ONLY

SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING Appointed Trustee: Law Offices of Les Zieve

Email: crdocs@sls.net 30 Corporate Park, Ste. 450
Fax: 1-720-241-7526 Irvine, CA 92606
Fax: 1-714-848-7650
Attn: Tricinda (SPOC) Attn: Tanya C. McCullah, Esq.

SCHEDULED SALE FOR JUNE 20, 2016 NEEDS TO BE SUSPENDED

NO FURTHER NOTICE WILL BE GIVEN

Re: Ramiro J. Perez

Property: 5973, 5975 and 5975 ½ Watcher Street
Bell Gardens, CA 90201
Loan#: 1005866538
TSN#: 15-36774

Perez v. FV-1, Inc.,, et al.

LASC Case# BC615766

Dear Gentleperson(s):
This letter will serve as Mr. Rickey Ellis’ Formal Appeal to the Trial Plan Payment
Modification dated July 6, 2016 mailed to Mr. Ellis along with a Notice of Trustee Sale, with a
Sale Date of August 8, 2016. The TPP is to begin August 1, 2016 with a Sale Date of August 8,
2016. This is clear “Dual Tracking” in violation of California’s Homeowners’ Bill of Rights.
California Civil Code 2923.6 prevents “dual tracking”. The Homeowners’ Bill of Rights
(HBR) Civil Code §§ 2923.55, 2924.12, and 2924.17(a)(b), Civil Code sections, 2923.6, 2923.7,
229.24.10 and 2924.1, aims to give consumers a fair chance of modifying their loan before their
servicer forecloses on their home. According to the Homeonwers’ Bill of Rights, a Notice of
Trustee Sale or Deed Upon Sale cannot be recorded while a loan modification application is under
review. Obviously, Mr. Ellis was under review and consideration for a loan modification at the
time you recorded the Notice of Trustee Sale. There are clear violations of In addition too, the
direct contradiction and violation of HAMP guidelines, Department of
HBR also gives the homeowner 30 days to appeal any decision of the lender/servicer
(California Civil Code 2923.6). Further, the letter from SPS also addresses the right to appeal the
decision.
Now, the TPP Home Affordable Modification Program given to Mr. Ellis is 46.45% of his
gross monthly income, which does not comply with either HAMP or California law. HAMP is
designed to prevent avoidable home foreclosures by incentivizing loan servicers to reduce the
required monthly mortgage payments to 31% of their month gross. Under the program, servicers
are obliged to abide by guidelines promulgated by U.S. Department Of Treasury (“DOT”) when
determining a mortgagor's eligibility for a permanent loan modification (see U.S. Dept. of
Treasury, Making Home Affordable Program, Handbook for Servicers of Non–GSE Mortgages, at
27 [Dec. 15, 2011]). Mr. Ellis’ verified monthly income is $6,000.00 monthly.
Again, California Civil Code § 2923.5 et seq., requires lenders to modify loans where a
borrower qualifies. Civil Code § 2923.5 states:
(a) A mortgage loan servicer that has implemented a comprehensive loan
modification program that meets the requirements of this section shall have the
loans that it services exempted from the provisions of Section 2923.52, upon
order of the commissioner. A comprehensive loan modification program shall
include all of the following features:
(1) The loan modification program is intended to keep borrowers whose principal
residences are homes located in California in those homes when the anticipated
recovery under the loan modification or workout plan exceeds the anticipated
recovery through foreclosure on a net present value basis.
(2) The loan modification program targets a ratio of the borrower's housing
related debt to the borrower's gross income of 38 percent or less, on an aggregate
basis in the program.
(3) The loan modification program includes some combination of the following
features:
(A) An interest rate reduction, as needed, for a fixed term of at least five years.
(B) An extension of the amortization period for the loan term, to no more than 40
years from the original date of the loan.
(C) Deferral of some portion of the principal amount of the unpaid principal
balance until maturity of the loan.
(D) Reduction of principal.
(E) Compliance with a federally mandated loan modification program.
(F) Other factors that the commissioner determines are appropriate. In
determining those factors, the commissioner may consider efforts implemented
in other jurisdictions that have resulted in a reduction in foreclosures.
(4) When determining a loan modification solution for a borrower under the loan
modification program, the servicer seeks to achieve long-term sustainability for
 the borrower. If the servicer denies a homeowner’s application, they must give
the homeowner a letter detailing why they were denied. The homeowner has 30
days from the date on the letter to appeal any determination made on a request
for loan modification (CC § 2923.6). Under California law, the servicer cannot
collect late fees while they are considering a complete loan modification
application (CC § 2924.11).

As such, we are appealing and request that Gregory Funding re-review our client for a
loan modification pursuant to DOJ/HAMP/MHA guidelines.
Such a request is a bona fide good faith attempt at a loan workout. Failure to attempt a
workout is a violation of California law and Federal law.
Our office will contact your office in the next couple days to get an update as to your
consideration for the borrower for the aforementioned loan modification programs.

Not only has SLS been dual tracking Mr. Perez’s application for modification, SLS is not even
allowing Mr. Perez time to review their denial; SLS is denying him his due process right to appeal
the denial by going forward with a foreclosure sale before he has received the denial letter.
1. There is no “valid” Substitution of Trustee from the original Trustee to any subsequently
assigned Trustee to the Substitution of Law Offices of Les Zieve substituted in as Trustee.
THERE IS NOT VERIFICATION OF PROPER FORECLOSURE DOCUMENTATION
pursuant to Civil Code 2924.17.
Civil Code §2924.12(a), ((b) and (d) gives Borrowers the authority and right to seek redress of
“material” violations of the new foreclosure process protections. Injunctive relief will be available
prior to a foreclosure sale and recovery of damages will be available following a sale. Significantly
for lenders, as long as the mortgage servicer remedies the material violation of the Act before the
trustee’s deed upon sale has recorded, the Act specifically provides that the mortgage servicer shall
not be liable under the Act for any violation or damages. (Civil Code §2924.12(b) & (c).)
Therefore unless the sale is suspended today, Mr. Perez will seek an injunction and damages. NOT
FURTHER NOTICE WILL BE GIVEN.
Sincerely,

Ramiro J. Perez