On XXXX/XXXX/2015 a request for modification review was sent to US Bank. On XXXX/XXXX/2015 at XXXX XXXX a call was made to US Bank - XXXX x XXXX and spoke with XXXX. The notes XX/XX/XXXX from processors were that docs were needed : co-borrowers signature and date on RMA, current retirement award letter and two months proof of receipt, and two months proof of receipt for SSI. On XXXX/XXXX/2015 these docs were faxed to the lender. Nothing had been received from the lender concerning addition missing documents until XXXX/XXXX/2015, where a voicemail was left for XXXX XXXX the processor after a letter stating that an updated XXXX form was needed. This was faxed to US Bank the same day. On XXXX/XXXX/2015 XXXX called in and advised of a new LIST of documents needed now. Stating that they need updated retirement award letter and a XXXX for co borrower - advised XXXX was received, but they want a separate one for XXXX, the co borrower. On XXXX/XXXX/2015 all the above requested documents were faxed to the lender. On XXXX/XXXX/2015 a third party attempted to get an updated but US Bank stated that the authorization had expired and could not speak with them. By XXXX/XXXX/2015 a new authorization was provided and faxed to the lender. On XXXX/XXXX/2015 a call was made to US Bank by the authorized third party and XXXX stated that we needed to add tax ID on third party authorization and that both borrowers need to sign the power of attorney to discuss the file. She was questioned as to why and she did n't know. A supervisor was requested and then the call was transferred to a line that rang and rang with no voicemail or pickup. Later that day the Tax ID number was added to the power of attorney and re-faxed it to US Bank. In the meantime no document stating of missing documents were ever sent to the attorneys office or the client. It was n't until XXXX/XXXX/2015 that the authorized representative from attorney 's office was able to speak with the lender and they stated that they were missing an updated award letter. The most updated award letter dated XXXX/XXXX/2015 had been previously faxed to the lender MULTIPLE TIMES at this point. Again this document was faxed same day to the lender. On XXXX/XXXX/2015 a call was received by the authorized XXXX party that the file was closed on XXXX/XXXX/2015 and a new submission was required. This is absolutely ridiculous. The lender played games not requesting all the needed documents at one time, but when documents were requested they were received in a timely fashion. There is absolutely no reason that a resolution should not have been reached by this time, let alone CLOSING the review. This review was handled haphazardly in a fashion to promote the foreclosure of XXXX XXXX 's home, when he has been doing everything in his power to attempt to work it out with the lender. 
