2017 CFPB Ocwen-Complaint

Case 9:17-cv-80495-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2017 Page 1 of 93
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION
Case No. 9:17-CV-80495
CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU,

Plaintiff,
vs.
OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION,

a Florida corporation,
OCWEN MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC.,

a U. S. Virgin Islands corporation, and
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC,

a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendants.
______________________________________________
COMPLAINT
1. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) brings this action
against Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing, Inc., and Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC (collectively Ocwen or Defendants) under Sections 1054 and 1055 of
the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA), 12 U.S.C. 5564 and 5565.
Ocwen is one of the largest mortgage servicers in the United States. The Company
specializes in servicing the loans of distressed borrowers. It committed numerous
violations of Federal consumer financial laws that have harmed borrowers. Among other
things, Ocwen has improperly calculated loan balances, misapplied borrower payments,
failed to correctly process escrow and insurance payments, and failed to properly
investigate and make corrections in response to consumer complaints. Ocwen has
1
compounded these failures by illegally foreclosing upon borrowers loans and selling
loan servicing rights to servicers without fully disclosing or correcting errors in
borrowers loan files.
2. The Bureau brings this action against the Defendants under: (1) Sections
1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536; (2) Sections 807(2)(a), 807(10),
and 808 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692e(2)(a), 1692e(10),
and 1692f (the FDCPA); (3) Sections 6 and 19 of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. 2605, 2617, and the regulations promulgated
thereunder at Regulation X, 12 C.F.R. part 1024 (Regulation X); (4) Section 105(a) of
the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1604(a), and the regulations promulgated
thereunder at Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. part 1026 (Regulation Z); and (5) Section 3(b) of
the Homeowners Protection Act of 1998, 12 U.S.C. 4902(b) (the HPA).
3. The Bureau brings this action to obtain permanent injunctive relief,
restitution, refunds, disgorgement, damages, civil monetary penalties, and other relief
for the Defendants violations of Federal consumer financial law.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action because it is
brought under Federal consumer financial law, 12 U.S.C. 5565(a)(1), presents a federal
question, 28 U.S.C. 1331, and is brought by an agency of the United States, 28 U.S.C.
1345.
5. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and 12 U.S.C.
5564(f) because Defendants are located in or do business in this district and part of the
events giving rise to the claims took place in this district.
2
PLAINTIFF
6. The Bureau is an independent agency of the United States created by the
CFPA. 12 U.S.C. 5491(a). The Bureau is charged with enforcing Federal consumer
financial laws. 12 U.S.C. 5563, 5564.
7. The CFPA is a Federal consumer financial law. 12 U.S.C. 5481(14). Under
Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, it is unlawful for any covered person to commit or
engage in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. 12 U.S.C. 5531(a),
5536(a)(1)(B).
8. The FDCPA, RESPA, TILA, and HPA are Federal consumer financial laws.
12 U.S.C. 5481(14). Under Section 1036 of the CFPA, it is unlawful for any covered
person to offer or provide to a consumer any financial product or service not in
conformity with Federal consumer financial law, or otherwise commit any act or
omission in violation of a Federal consumer financial law. 12 U.S.C 5536(a)(1)(A).
Violations of the FDCPA, RESPA, TILA, and HPA are therefore violations of Section
1036 of the CFPA. 12 U.S.C 5536(a)(1)(A).
9. The Bureau is authorized to commence civil actions in federal district
court, in its own name, to address violations of Federal consumer financial law,
including violations of the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. 5564(a) and (b).
DEFENDANTS
10. Ocwen Financial Corporation (OFC) is a publicly-traded Florida
corporation that maintains its principal place of business in West Palm Beach, Florida.
At all times relevant to this complaint, OFC has done business in this District and
throughout the United States.
3
11. Ocwen Mortgage Servicing, Inc. (OMS) is a United States Virgin Island
corporation that maintains its principal place of business in the United States Virgin
Islands. At all times relevant to this complaint, OMS has done business in this District
and throughout the United States.
12. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (OLS) is a Delaware limited liability
company that maintains its principal place of business in West Palm Beach, Florida. At
all times relevant to this complaint, OLS has done business in this District and
throughout the United States.
13. OFC, through its subsidiaries, originates and services loans. OFC, OMS,
and OLS (collectively Ocwen) engage in servicing activities relating to the loans by,
among other things, processing borrower payments, administering loss mitigation
processes, and managing foreclosures. Ocwen also acquires and collects upon
borrowers mortgage debts that are in default.
14. OFC, the parent and publicly-traded company, wholly owns all of the
common stock of its primary operating subsidiary, OMS. OMS wholly owns the stock of
another of OFCs primary operating subsidiaries, OLS. All three entities share and have
shared key executives, such as Ronald Faris, Timothy Hayes, Michael Bourque, and
John Patrick Cox. All three entities, through OFC, file a consolidated financial statement
with OFCs public disclosures.
15. OFC controls, directs, operates, and participates in mortgage servicing
activities, including the daily cashiering, escrow, insurance, loss mitigation, foreclosure,
call center, and consumer complaint operations for Ocwens loans. OFC enters into
agreements for products and services that are necessary for Ocwen to service mortgage
loans and collect debt. OFC has contracted for such products and services, including a
4
system of record and related technology services, for and on behalf of Ocwens affiliates,
which include OMS and OLS.
16. OMS is also engaged in servicing loans. OMS is licensed by numerous state
regulators to service loans and collect mortgage debts. OMS has entered into
agreements for products and services that are necessary for Ocwen to service mortgage
loans and collect debt. OMS has contracted for such products and services, including a
system of record and related technology services used by OLS and OFC. OLS also
represented, in an August 23, 2016 Consent Order with the State of Washington
Department of Financial Institutions, that OMS engages in the servicing or subservicing
of OLS loans.
17. OLS is also engaged in servicing loans. OLS is licensed by numerous state
regulators to service loans and collect upon borrowers mortgage debts. OLS is also the
owner of the mortgage servicing rights for the loans that Ocwen services.
18. Under OFCs and OMSs direction, authority, and control, OLS has also
engaged in the marketing and processing and transmitting of payments for credit
monitoring products, financial advisory products, and other products that are added on
to Ocwen borrowers accounts.
19. OFC, OMS, and OLS are, and have been at all times relevant to this
Complaint, covered persons, as that term is defined by 12 U.S.C. 5481(6)(A), because
they offer or provide a consumer financial product or service for use by consumers
primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, or that is delivered, offered, or
provided in connection with such a product or service by: servicing mortgage loans;
collecting on consumers mortgage debts; and marketing and processing and
transmitting payments for credit monitoring products, financial advisory products, and
5
other products that are added on to the accounts of borrowers whose loans they service
(add-on products). 12 U.S.C. 5481(15)(A)(i), (iv), (vii), (viii), and (x).
20. OFC is, and has been at all times relevant to this Complaint, a related
person because, as described in Paragraph 14, it is the direct and indirect shareholder
of all OMS and OLS stock, and is thus a controlling shareholder and shareholderor
other personwho materially participates in the conduct of the affairs of OMS and
OLS, which are covered persons. 12 U.S.C. 5481(25)(C)(i) and (ii). OFC is thus
deemed to [be] a covered person for all purposes of any provision of Federal consumer
financial law. 12 U.S.C. 5481(25)(B). OMS is, and has been at all times relevant to this
Complaint, a related person because, as described in Paragraph 14, it owns all of OLSs
stock and is thus a controlling shareholder and a shareholderor other personwho
materially participates in the conduct of the affairs of OLS, which is a covered person.
12 U.S.C. 5481(25)(C)(i) and (ii). OMS is thus deemed to [be] a covered person for all
purposes of any provision of Federal consumer financial law. 12 U.S.C. 5481(25)(B).
21. OFC and OMS are, and have been at all times relevant to this Complaint,
service providers to OLS because, as described in Paragraphs 15 and 16, OFC and OMS
have provided material services to OLS. 12 U.S.C. 5481(26)(A). OFC and OMS have
also controlled and participated in the design, operation, and maintenance of OLSs
mortgage servicing activities and marketing and processing and transmitting payments
for add-on products. 12 U.S.C. 5481(26)(A)(i).
22. OLS, OMS, and OFC operate as a common enterprise. OLS, OMS, and
OFC have conducted the business practices described below through interconnected
companies that have common business functions, employees, and office locations. OFC
and OMS control (either formally or informally) and operate OLSs mortgage servicing
6
activities and marketing of and payment processing and transmitting payments for add-
on products. OFC and OMS also contract for critical mortgage servicing operations for
and on behalf of OLS. OFC, OMS, and OLS also file consolidated financial statements
and share employees and offices. Accordingly, an act by one entity constitutes an act by
each entity comprising the common enterprise, and OFC, OMS, and OLS are each
jointly and severally liable for the acts and practices alleged below.
23. As described in Paragraphs 14-18, OFC and OMS have directed and
controlled OLSs mortgage servicing activities and marketing of and payment processing
and transmitting payments for add-on products, and authorized OLS to service Ocwens
loans. Employees of OFC and OMS have knowledge of and control or have the ability to
control the activities of OLS discussed herein. OFC and OMS, as OLSs principals, are
liable for the actions of their agent, OLS.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
I. BACKGROUND
A. Company background.
24. William Erbey formed Ocwen in 1988. He served as the Companys Chief
Executive Officer until 2010. Ronald Faris succeeded Erbey and continues to serve as
Ocwens Chief Executive Officer.
25. Between 2010 and the first quarter of 2014, Ocwens residential servicing
portfolio grew from 351,595 loans with an aggregate unpaid principal balance of
approximately $50 billion to 2,861,918 loans with an aggregate unpaid principal balance
of approximately $465 billion. Ocwens largest acquisition during this time period was
its 2013 purchase of Residential Capital, LLCs (Residential Capital) servicing platform
and its mortgage servicing rights to 1,740,000 loans with an aggregate unpaid principal
7
balance of approximate $183.1 billion. As of December 31, 2016, Ocwen serviced
approximately 1,393,766 loans with an aggregate unpaid principal balance of
approximately $209 billion. Its loans are located in all fifty states and the District of
Columbia.
26. Borrowers do not choose their mortgage servicer and have no control over
whether and how Ocwen services their loans.
B. Ocwens REALServicing System of Record.
27. Fundamental functions of a mortgage servicer include processing and
applying borrower payments, communicating accurate payment information to
borrowers, managing escrow accounts, and maintaining accurate loan balance
information.
28. Servicers also respond to borrower inquiries, handle loss mitigation
requests, and initiate foreclosure proceedings, among other functions.
29. To perform these tasks, servicers input loan and borrower information
into electronic databases, often referred to as systems of record. Systems of record are
essential to a servicers ability to service loans in accordance with applicable legal
requirements. If the information the servicer inputs into the system of record is
inaccurate, or the system itself has deficiencies that produce inaccurate information
even when the servicer inputs correct information, a servicer can make critical errors
that harm borrowers.
30. Ocwen has used and continues to use a proprietary system of record,
REALServicing, and its related sub-systems (collectively REALServicing).
31. In 2009, Ocwen spun off its internal technology department into a
separate company, Altisource Portfolio Solutions (Altisource). As a result of this spin-
8
off, Altisource owns and maintains the REALServicing platform. Ocwen has contracted
with Altisource for technology services. In 2012 and 2013, while Erbey was the
Chairman of the Boards of both Altisource and Ocwen, Ocwen extended this technology-
services contract through 2025.
32. No other mortgage servicer uses REALServicing.
II. OCWEN HAS SERVICED LOANS BASED ON INACCURATE AND

INCOMPLETE BORROWER LOAN INFORMATION
33. As set forth in greater detail below, Ocwen has serviced loans and collected
upon debts based on inaccurate and incomplete borrower loan information. Ocwen has
often input inaccurate and incomplete information, or failed to input accurate or
complete information, about borrowers loans into its REALServicing system of record.
Even when the information in REALServicing has been accurate, REALServicing has
generated inaccurate information about borrowers loans due to system deficiencies.
Because of these system deficiencies, Ocwen has had to rely upon manual processes and
workarounds that have themselves resulted in errors in borrowers loan information.
34. Ocwens use of inaccurate and incomplete information to collect mortgage,
tax, and insurance payments, communicate with borrowers about loss mitigation issues,
proceed with foreclosures, and when selling the servicing rights of borrowers loans to
new servicers has resulted in significant harm to borrowers.
A. Ocwen loaded inaccurate and incomplete information into

REALServicing and serviced loans using this information.
35. When Ocwen acquires servicing rights for loans, it moves, or boards, the
records for those loans from the prior servicers systems of record onto REALServicing.
36. As described in Paragraph 25, between 2010 and 2014, Ocwen acquired
the rights to service millions of residential loans, including more than 1.7 million
9
Residential Capital loans. Ocwen inputted inaccurate and incomplete loan information
and payment data from these acquisitions into REALServicing.
1. Ocwen boarded inaccurate and incomplete loan and payment data

from prior servicers into REALServicing.
37. In many instances, the systems of record that other servicers use contain
data fields that are different from the data fields in REALServicing. To check whether it
is correctly boarding loan data from the prior servicers systems onto REALServicing,
Ocwen verifies critical loan data fieldssuch as interest rate, property type, and unpaid
principal balanceby matching it with the information in the borrowers loan
documentation. If the information in REALServicing does not match what Ocwen finds
in the documents, Ocwen is supposed to correct the error in REALServicing.
38. To ensure the loan data it is using to service loans is complete and
accurate, Ocwen seeks to complete this loan verification process within 60 days of
boarding the loan onto REALServicing. Since 2014, however, Ocwen has not completed
this process within 60 days. Instead, it has relied on unverified loan information for
monthsand often for more than a yearto service hundreds of thousands of loans.
39. As of December 2013, Ocwen had a backlog of more than 400,000
transferred loans that remained unverified. It did not finish verifying and making
corrections to critical data fields for these loans until August 31, 2014. Due to this
backlog, Ocwen also delayed verifying the 1.7 million Residential Capital loans it
previously acquired in 2013, and which it moved from Residential Capitals servicing
platform and boarded onto REALServicing on a rolling basis beginning in early 2014.
Ocwen did not even begin the verification process for the Residential Capital loans until
September 1, 2014; at that time, Ocwen was servicing more than 1.1 million unverified
10
Residential Capital loans on REALServicing. By the end of 2014, when Ocwen
completed boarding Residential Capital loans onto REALServicing, the verification
backlog had grown to more than 1.3 million unverified Residential Capital loans. As of
April 2016, Ocwen still had a backlog of more than 263,000 unverified Residential
Capital loans.
40. In November 2014, Ocwen determined that it was taking, on average, 261
days to complete its verification process for each loan it boarded. In some cases, the
verification process has taken more than a year, far beyond Ocwens expected 60-day
time period.
41. As of 2014, in addition to boarding loans with inaccurate loan information,
Ocwen also boarded loans that contained payment history data that it had reason to
believe was inaccurate or incomplete. Ocwen, for example, boarded incomplete or
incorrect payment histories onto REALServicing, such as payment histories that include
misapplied payments and transactions that occurred before the loan was even
originated.
42. As of 2014, Ocwen had also failed to verify whether the prior servicers
corporate advances or fees for servicing-related expensessuch as attorneys fees,
property inspection fees, property preservation fees, force-placed insurance charges,
and foreclosure-related expenseswere valid and actually owed by borrowers. In many
instances, Ocwen has charged borrowers for these charges and fees, even though neither
Ocwen nor the prior servicer had invoices or other documents to support these charges
and fees, and even though Ocwen was receiving disputes from borrowers claiming that
these charges or fees were not owed.
11
43. For example, in December 2014, when Ocwen reviewed loans it had
boarded the previous year, it determined that it was missing invoices or other
documents to support $98 million in corporate advances that it had charged to
borrowers. In June 2015, Ocwen also learned that it did not have documentation to
support $58 million out of $85 million in corporate advances that it had charged to
borrowers whose loans it transferred to new servicers.
2. As a result of Ocwens verification failures, Ocwen has serviced

thousands of loans based on incorrect information.
44. Because Ocwen failed to verify the accuracy and completeness of
borrowers loan data during its expected 60-day time period after boarding, it has
delayed correcting any loan data errors or incomplete loan information. As a result of
the delayin many instances, more than a yearOcwen serviced a significant number of
loans based on inaccurate loan information.
45. According to Ocwen, which tracked the results of its verification of loans
from 2014 through at least April 2016, a significant percentage of the loans it ultimately
verified contained errors or incomplete information and required corrections. For
example, in April 2014, Ocwen reported that 72 percent of the loans it verified that
month contained errors or incomplete information and required corrections in
REALServicing. In March 2016, 90 percent of the loans Ocwen verified contained errors
or incomplete information that required corrections.
46. As a result of the findings of its verification process, from September 2014
until April 2016, Ocwen determined that it needed to make more than 870,000
corrections in REALServicing, including, more than: 43,000 corrections to the
maximum late fees a borrower could be charged (under state law); 31,000 corrections to
12
loans maturity dates; 27,000 corrections to loan terms; 24,000 corrections to loans
first interest rate cap maximum; and 5,000 corrections to loans interest rates.
47. Even when Ocwen completed its verification process and identified
inaccuracies in loan data, in many instances, Ocwen has failed to accurately correct the
errors in REALServicing. For example, in November 2014, Ocwen conducted an internal
audit and found that its loan verification personnel were not properly correcting or
updating the information in REALServicing in 63 percent of loans the audit team
reviewed. The audit found that Ocwen personnel had failed to properly correct critical
data fields such as loan maturity date, loan term, first payment date, balloon term, and
first interest rate cap.
48. In 2015, Ocwens outside consultant identified additional deficiencies in
Ocwens loan boarding process, such as:
High volume of loans error out of the automated process for unknown reasons
requiring manual revision;
Limited available data fields cause various groups to use and reuse same fields
for different information; and
Limited system functionality in place to accommodate SCRA [Servicemembers
Civil Relief Act] requirements (e.g., unable to stop fees if fee was in place prior to
customer becoming SCRA eligible).
13
B. Ocwens reliance on its deficient servicing platform,

REALServicing, has exacerbated its use of inaccurate loan
information.
1. Ocwen and its outside consultant have concluded that

REALServicing is failing.
49. Ocwens own senior leadership has repeatedly recognized and
acknowledged REALServicings failures.
50. For example, in an internal communication in 2014 with Ocwens Chief
Executive Officer, Ocwens Head of Servicing described Ocwens technology as:
An absolute train wreck. I know theres no shot in

hell, but if I could change systems tomorrow I
would. I cant tell you the number of hours I and others
spend on basic servicing technology blocking and tackling.
Im not talking about differentiators here. Im talking about
getting system to stay online, escrow analysis to work, letters
to print, etc. Its ridiculous. (Emphasis added.)
51. Ocwens former Head of Servicing Compliance testified in May 2016 that
she was absolutely concerned that Ocwen could not service loans on REALServicing in
compliance with applicable laws when she worked at the company between 2014 and
2015. She testified that she, other members of the Compliance Department, and the
leaders of Servicing Operations, Loss Mitigation, and other Ocwen business units
frequently and loudly raised this concern. In determining the root cause of various
issues, she explained, the answer would almost always be REALServicing and
the processes that were using, would be the answer we would get from the
business . . . . [It was a] commonality across all of [the business units] . . . . Everything
in servicing, every department in servicing.
52. These senior leaders conclusions are not outliers. Between 2014 and 2016,
Ocwen assessed REALServicing and also hired an outside consultant to do the same.
14
Both Ocwen and its consultant concluded that REALServicing lacks the basic system
architecture and design necessary to properly service loans.
53. Since 2014, Ocwen has also tracked its regulatory violations, risk areas,
and other failures in spreadsheets named Risk Convergence Reports. Each regulatory
violation, risk item, or failure identified in the report includes a description of the issue,
the date Ocwen identified the issue, whether the issue is dependent on Altisource, the
status of any technology fix or other operational remediation, and other information.
54. Each item in the Risk Convergence Reports is assigned a risk rating,
ranging from R1 to R5. R1 is the highest risk rating, which Ocwen defines as:
Potential adverse impact of over $5 million; Actual or high possibility for fraud, waste
or abuse; Breach of company policy or procedures (frequent, repeat, or disregarding
policy); Noncompliance with the law or regulation; or Material errors or
irregularities are a reasonable possibility.
55. According to Ocwens list of items in the Risk Convergence Report, the
items often resulted from and have continued due to REALServicing failures or system
limitations. When, for example, Ocwen conducted its first on-site audit of Altisource and
REALServicing in 2014, Ocwen auditors concluded that, although 70 percent of the
items contained within the Risk Convergence Report related to technology projects and
enhancements that Altisource was responsible for, little progress was being made to
resolve the items due to Altisources lack of priority.
56. As of August 2015, Ocwen had catalogued 2,803 issues on its Risk
Convergence Report. Of those 2,803 issues, Ocwen assigned the highest risk rating,
R1, to more than 550 issues, many of which resulted from REALServicings
deficiencies.
15
57. In 2016, Ocwens Chief Information Officer and other personnel
performed an architectural assessment of REALServicing, and reported, among other
things, that REALServicing had significant deficiencies represent[ing] significant risk
and expense to Ocwen and concluded that the the most important dimensions of Core
Technology to REALServicing, such as performance and scalability, loan type support,
risk exposure, and organizational capability, compare unfavorably to other mortgage
platforms.
2. REALServicings deficiencies impact Ocwens ability to lawfully

service loans.
58. REALServicing suffers from fundamental system architecture and design
flaws, including a lack of properly managed data, lack of automation, and lack of
capacity. These flaws have adversely impacted the accuracy of the information that
Ocwen uses to service loansand, thus, Ocwens ability to service loansin a number of
ways.
59. First, with respect to Ocwens data management, REALServicing requires
the use of more than 10,000 comment codes and flags. Yet, Ocwen lacks a complete data
dictionary defining its comment codes, flags, and data fields. As a result, Ocwen
personnel do not share a common understanding of what these comment codes or flags
mean or how Ocwen personnel should use them.
60. Ocwen employees also do not understand how changes to certain codes
impact other codes or work processes. Ocwens former Head of Compliance, who
worked at Ocwen from August of 2013 until September of 2015, testified in May 2016
that during his tenure at Ocwen he repeatedly requested information on the meaning
and basic descriptive information of comment codes; how Ocwens business units used
16
them; and what downstream activities the codes trigger and what upstream activities
trigger the codes. He further testified that neither Ocwen nor Altisource could provide
that information. Further, he testified that Ocwens use of thousands of REALServicing
comment codes was antiquated and that it was inappropriate that Ocwen did not
have a data dictionary to define these codes and describe their impact on other
activities.
61. Second, REALServicing lacks the necessary automation and functionality
to handle basic servicing operations. In 2015, an Ocwen consultant concluded that
REALServicing had limited workflows and lacked automation. As detailed in the next
subsection and Section III, in certain areas, such as payment processing and escrow, this
lack of automation has resulted in significant and excessive manual workarounds that
have created errors in borrowers accounts.
62. Third, REALServicing has lacked the capacity to process the large number
of loans that Ocwen has acquired and, in part as a result, it has not been functional for
lengthy periods of time. After Ocwens large 2013 and 2014 loan acquisitions, Ocwens
personnel reported high incidents of system unavailability. For example, for the year
of 2014, Ocwens officials reported that its loss mitigation system was down
approximately 17,000 work hours. In internal communications in 2014, Ocwens Head
of Loss Mitigation expressed exasperation about the unavailability of Ocwens loan
modification systems:
I am sorry guys, this has broken my back. Enough is

enough on daily issues with these systems. We have
lost more than 15 days of production of past 3 months I
need this system up every day and performing. It is clear
by the issues over the past 3 months that there are
not any controls on data and system quality.
(Emphases added.)
17
63. Fourth, REALServicing suffers from various bugs, defects, and failures.
For example, in 2014, due to programming errors and data not properly converting
among REALServicing applications, Ocwen sent more than 1,800 borrowers permanent
loan modification agreements that contained incorrect interest rate, principal payment,
maturity date, and balloon payment information.
C. Ocwen has relied excessively on manual data entry and reports

to address REALServicings failures.
64. Because of REALServicings failures and limitations, Ocwen has resorted
to manual processes, which themselves have resulted in errors. Ocwens consultant
reached the following conclusionswhich Ocwen conceded were correctafter
analyzing REALServicing and interviewing Ocwen business leaders:
[Ocwens] lack of business process automation has resulted in excessive
manual processes to address gaps;
Manual workarounds and reporting are widely used to compensate for
insufficient system functionality to complete, track, or control processes; and
While appearing cost effective, manual controls pose significant risk in
heightened compliance environment. (Emphases in original.)
65. Ocwen creates reportstypically referred to as control reportsto catch
errors and mistakes or data that REALServicing cannot process due to a lack of
automation and other system deficiencies, but these reports are of limited use for at
least two reasons.
66. First, as Ocwens former Head of Compliance testified, the reports are only
effective to the extent that they are based on accurate and complete data. But Ocwens
former Head of Servicing Compliance, who worked for Ocwen from April of 2014 until
18
August 2015, testified in May 2016 that REALServicing lacks the necessary data to
generate effective control reports and detect problems. She explained, for example, that
when generating a control report using a certain field in REALServicing, that field is
used about five different ways so the report generates a whole mish-mash of
information that does not help Ocwen personnel understand whether an exception or
error occurred.
67. Second, Ocwens manual workarounds and processes introduce the risk of
human error. As Ocwens former Head of Compliance testified, the concern that such
manual processes could result in human error is one of the sort of classic reasons one
automates a manual process. Other former and current Ocwen business unit leaders
have reiterated this point.
68. For these reasons, Ocwens controls have been ineffective. As Ocwens
former Head of Servicing Compliance testified: [E]very business unit in the entire
organization lacked sufficient controls to prevent mistakes and to detect
when mistakes occurred.
D. Ocwens use of inaccurate and incomplete information has

harmed borrowers.
69. Ocwens use of inaccurate and incomplete information resulting from its
boarding of inaccurate and incomplete information into REALServicing,
REALServicings deficiencies, and Ocwens error-prone manual processes has caused or
is likely to have caused borrowers substantial harm, and resulted in Ocwen
communicating, orally and in writing, information to borrowers that it knew or had a
reason to know was inaccurate.
19
70. Ocwen is aware of this substantial harm or likelihood of substantial harm.
In 2015, Ocwens outside consultant conducted interviews with Ocwen business leaders.
These leaders identified 67 failuresor pain pointsrepresenting functional and/or
technical deficiencies that stemm[ed] from systematic and manual processes,
including the following:
With respect to escrow: a technical gap causing escrow analysis to be conducted
incorrectly and a manual bankruptcy workaround for loans acquired already in
bankruptcy, causes information to be deleted from history as new information is
updated. This information should be disclosed to the borrower in order to
calculated escrow accurately;
With respect to insurance disbursements: no systematic controls exist in to
prevent duplicate disbursements in REALServicing resulting in 6k -12k incidents
per year. Personnel must manually remove necessary codes (e.g., paid in full,
service released);
With respect to loan modification processes: [u]pon review of a [loan
modification] package, terms are found to be incorrect approximately 80% of the
time (e.g., NPV miscalculation, final modification date incorrect);
With respect to foreclosure data: [d]ata between REALResolution [the
REALServicing application for foreclosures] and REALServicing is not always in
sync due to lack of adequate system mapping; and
With respect to the payment of borrower taxes: [a]lthough tax assessment
information is supposed to be used to project more accurate payments,
REALServicing automatically uses last years billing amount, even if installments
for the current year are different.

20
71. More generally, Ocwen has serviced borrowers loans and communicated,
orally and in writing, with borrowers using inaccurate and incomplete information,
including information relating to borrowers loan terms, amounts received from and
owed by borrowers, escrow amounts, insurance amounts, and/or loss mitigation and
foreclosure information. As set forth above and below in Section III, because Ocwen has
serviced loans based on inaccurate and incomplete information, it has, among other
things, collected or attempted to collect inaccurate amounts from borrowers, failed to
timely pay borrowers insurance policies, provided borrowers with loan modifications
with inaccurate terms, and initiated wrongful foreclosure proceedings upon borrowers
loans.
72. Ocwens use of a deficient system of record that results in inaccurate and
incomplete borrower loan information does not benefit consumers or competition. Such
a system of record does not result in cost savings, enhanced customer service, or other
benefit to consumers or competition.
III. OCWENS SERVICING FAILURES HAVE MANIFESTED

THEMSELVES IN AT LEAST EIGHT DISTINCT WAYS THAT HARM
BORROWERS
A. Ocwen has mishandled borrowers payments.
73. Ocwen is required to correctly credit borrowers payments, including any
overpayment or partial payments, consistent with the borrowers mortgage notes and
applicable laws, including Regulation Z.
74. Ocwen has routinely failed to send borrowers timely and accurate periodic
statements, failed to timely and accurately credit and apply borrower payments, and
failed to correct billing and payment errors.
21
75. Each day, Ocwen cashiering personnel manually enter, pull, and match
entries in REALServicing for more than 45,000 borrower-related transactions,
including 5,000 payment transactions and more than 40,000 disbursements. Ocwen
internal business units requested that Ocwen automate REALServicing to process
borrowers payments and disbursements for taxes and insurance. They explained that,
due to the volume[,] there is an immense need to automate this reconciliation to
ensure no risk for data loss or corruption.
76. As Ocwens former Head of Compliance testified, Ocwen has a higher risk
profile in the mortgage servicing industry due its heavy use of manual processes in its
Cashiering Unit, which handles credits to (e.g., borrowers payments) and debits from
(e.g., disbursements for taxes or insurances) a borrowers loan balance.
1. Ocwens obligations under Regulation Z, Regulation X, the CFPA,

and the FDCPA.
77. Under Regulation Z, a servicer generally must provide a borrower with a
periodic statement each month that details, among other things, the amount the
borrower must pay that month, how the servicer will break down and apply the
borrowers monthly payment, all transaction activity since the last statement, and the
amount of payments in a suspense or unapplied funds account. When a servicer receives
a full periodic payment for a loan secured by the consumers principal residence, it must
credit the payment as of the date the payment is received unless, among other
exceptions, the delay in crediting does not result in a charge to the borrower or negative
reporting to a consumer reporting agency.
78. If the servicer receives a partial payment and holds it in a suspense or
unapplied funds account, Ocwen must, after accumulating funds sufficient to cover a
22
periodic payment, treat such funds as a full periodic payment (e.g., an amount sufficient
to cover principal, interest, and escrow, if applicable, for any given billing cycle).
79. Under Regulation X, a servicer is also required to have policies and
procedures reasonably designed to ensure, among other objectives, that the servicer is
providing accurate and timely disclosures to a borrower as required by applicable law,
such as periodic statements required under Regulation Z.
80. In addition to the requirements under Regulation Z and Regulation X, a
servicer is prohibited from engaging in unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices
related to payment crediting and debt collection activities under the CFPA and FDCPA.
2. Ocwen has failed to comply with Regulation Z, Regulation X, the

CFPA, and the FDCPA.
81. Ocwen has failed to comply with Regulation Z, Regulation X, the CFPA,
and/or the FDCPA in at least six ways.
82. First, in numerous instances, Ocwen has sent borrowers periodic
statements that contain inaccurate informationsuch as the date when Ocwen received
a borrower payment or the payment amount owed by a borrowerbecause of inaccurate
information in REALServicing. In other instances, even when the information in
REALServicing has been accurate, REALServicings deficiencies have resulted in Ocwen
sending borrowers periodic statements with inaccurate information related to interest,
late fees, escrow amounts, prepayment penalty statuses, payment amounts, deferred
principal balance amounts, and payments that Ocwen should have credited but refused
to credit and returned to borrowers. As demonstrated by Ocwens recurring inaccuracies
in its periodic statements, Ocwen has also failed to maintain reasonably designed
23
policies and procedures to ensure that it is providing borrowers with accurate and
timely periodic statements.
83. Second, Ocwen has failed to properly credit full periodic payments that
borrowers properly made to Ocwen as of the date of receipt, wrongly resulting in late
fees, negative credit reporting, and inaccurate loan delinquencies.
84. Since at least 2014, Ocwen has known that its lockbox vendor, which
handled its intake of physical payments (e.g., checks) until 2016, was unable to
accurately record the date when Ocwen received a borrowers physical payment. As
Ocwen detailed in its Risk Convergence Reports, this failure has resulted in delayed
payment posting, incorrect payment effective dating, late fees assessment, and negative
credit reporting.
85. Ocwen has identified numerous other payment processing errors by its
personnel and lockbox vendor, including:
Inconsistent processing of multiple payments (2 or more checks in one envelope)
that cause misapplication of physical payments by applying as an individual
payment instead of combined multi-payment;
Ocwens lockbox vendors failure to image correspondence received with
payments, resulting in payments not being correctly identified until a borrower
claim is received. Ultimately, this results in delays in payment posting process,
late fee assessment, and negative credit reporting; and
Where borrower payments by wire are manually entered and converted by Ocwen
personnel into REALServicing: [s]ometimes the file conversion does not convert
the data properly and the data needs to be reviewed, corrected and uploaded to
24
REALServicing by Cashiering and [e]rrors can occur during this manual
process.
86. Even after switching lockbox vendors in 2016, Ocwen continued to identify
payment processing mistakes. For example, in January of 2016, Ocwen found that
$8,420,208 in payments were received but not posted to customers accounts. Ocwen
concluded: Management has identified that not applying received payments or loading
payments multiple times has become a common occurrence.
87. Third, Ocwen has failed to timely credit payments from borrowers
suspense accounts when the suspense amount has accumulated sufficient funds to cover
a full periodic payment. Ocwen has allowed borrowers payments to languish in
suspense accounts for several days, months, and even years. As a result of Ocwens
failure to timely credit payments in suspense accounts, in certain instances, Ocwen has
charged borrowers late fees and deemed borrowers to be delinquent.
88. For example, a September 15, 2015 audit by investors of loans Ocwen
serviced found that: unapplied/suspense funds were not properly maintained, and
that, as of June 2015, more than 4,000 of the investors loans had suspense amounts
aged over 90 days up to 1,236 days that totaled more than $2.6 million with amounts
ranging to $0.01 to more than $27,000. The auditors also found that for the
miscellaneous suspense account there were more than 2,000 investor loans with
amounts over 90 days and up to 680 days and that totaled over $1.9 million with
amounts [in the suspense account] ranging from $0.01 to $267,475.64.
89. Fourth, Ocwen has misapplied borrowers payments and miscalculated
borrowers loan balances and amounts due. Once Ocwen receives a payment from a
borrower, the mortgage contract specifies how Ocwen must credit the payment (e.g., to
25
principal and interest first, then to any late and default fees). Ocwen has identified
numerous instances where it has misapplied borrowers payments and miscalculated
borrowers loan balances and amounts due. For example, in May 2016 Ocwen
determined that, due to a failed attempt in 2014 to fix a REALServicing technology flaw,
it was charging incorrect amounts to borrowers and was not being compliant with the
terms dictated in the note which directly impact the monthly account statement sent
to the borrowers.
90. Fifth, for borrowers in bankruptcy, Ocwen has failed to process and apply
payments correctly in accordance with certain bankruptcy requirements. By 2016,
Ocwen had concluded that REALServicing was broken in a number of ways that
adversely affected borrowers whose loans were subject to bankruptcy protections,
including that:
When REALServicing makes a contractual payment using pre- or post-petition
funds, the payment covers only the principal and interest component. Escrow is
not paid. This is contrary to what a bankruptcy court expects. Payments should
only be made for the full contractual amount, including the escrow (as calculated
for the due date of the payment to be made);
There is no connection between the proof of claim as determined in
Equator/REALResolution [the system Ocwen uses to process bankruptcy] and
the pre-petition arrearage balances in REALServicing. The proof of claim figures
need to become the REALServicing arrearage balances.
The process of converting a bankruptcy trustee payment to a payment batch is
highly manual and, therefore, both inefficient and at risk of error. Ocwen receives
funds from bankruptcy trustees that, generally, need to be applied to borrower
26
accounts as either pre-petition payments, post-petition payments, or bankruptcy
interests. There are some cases where, due to loan status, funds from the trustee
are not applied as payment, but are applied to miscellaneous suspense or other
non-payment accounts. Ocwen receives funds from bankruptcy trustees in a
single check that usually covers multiple accounts. Ocwen needs to apply the
funds across the different loans.
91. Sixth, based on Ocwens above failures, Ocwen has communicated, orally
and in writing, inaccurate information to borrowers about amounts due from borrowers,
amounts received from borrowers, dates as to when Ocwen received borrowers
payments, and borrower delinquency statuses. These representations are material to
borrowers managing their mortgages and are likely to mislead borrowers acting
reasonably under the circumstances.
3. Ocwens payment processing failures have caused significant

borrower harm.
92. Ocwens errors in crediting borrower payments and use of inaccurate
payment information have significantly harmed borrowers. Ocwen has charged
borrowers improper late fees; reported inaccurate, negative payment information to
credit reporting agencies; subjected borrowers to collection calls based on inaccurate
information; and wrongly threatened borrowers with foreclosure. This conduct has
harmed borrowers financially and caused borrower frustration and emotional distress.
93. Even when Ocwen has identified a payment error, in many instances it has
not properly corrected the error. Pursuant to Ocwens policies and procedures, its
Cashiering Department corrects identified errors through a reversal request or
27
correction to a borrowers account. In many instances, however, Ocwens personnel
have not made the reversal request in a timely or accurate manner.
94. A March 30, 2016 internal audit found, for example, that Ocwens
Cashiering Department lacked controls to ensure that reversal requestsapproximately
3,700 a month at that timewere timely and accurately processed. The auditors also
found that, when Ocwen actually processed reversal requests, it processed requests in
the sample incorrectly.
95. Not surprisingly, given Ocwens significant problems crediting and
applying borrower payments, a large number of borrowers have complained about
Ocwens payment processing.
96. From April 2015 to April 2016 alone, Ocwen received complaints from
more than 68,000 borrowers related to its processing of payments. Ocwen determined it
made numerous errors in the following categories: Payments Not Applied Correctly;
Funds Not Applied Correctly; Reversal Requests; Late and NSF Fees; Payment
Missing Not Applied to Account; Chargeback Issue - Borrower Disputes Charged
Back Item; Fee Assessed Improperly; Payment Not Processed Timely; ACH
Drafted Incorrectly (Incorrect Date, Multiple Drafts, etc.); Payoff Overage; ACH
Payment Chargeback; and Incorrect Data in the Account Statement.
97. The experience of one consumer trying to prepay her mortgage in April
2016 is illustrative of Ocwens payment processing errors. According to the consumer,
she sent Ocwen two checksone for principal and interest, and one check for her escrow
paymenton or around April 2, 2016 to prepay her May 2016 mortgage payment. Even
though the borrower stated that she sent the checks in the same envelope, Ocwen
records indicate that it received and processed the payments on different days. In
28
addition, when the borrower received her May 2016 mortgage statement, she reports
that Ocwen had misapplied her April 2016 principal and interest payment into a
suspense account. As a result, even though the borrower had sent Ocwen funds in
advance to prepay her mortgage, the consumer reports that Ocwen changed her status
to delinquent in May 2016, charged her late fees, and made disruptive and embarrassing
collection calls to her at her home and work.
98. Another borrower complained that Ocwen began rejecting her monthly
payments in November of 2014, even though she had been making full payments
pursuant to a September 2014 loan modification. The borrower states that when she
contacted Ocwen, an Ocwen case manager told her that Ocwens systems had rejected
the payment because the modified payment amount that Ocwen had recorded in its
system was a few cents different than the modified monthly payment amount that
Ocwen had told the borrower to pay in a letter approving her loan modification. After
supposedly fixing this issue, the borrower reports that Ocwen then began misapplying
her payments to the previous month (e.g., claiming the borrower made her January
2015 payment in February 2015). As a result, the borrower began receiving delinquency
notices and eventually a notice of default from Ocwen indicating that she had a past due
balance of $2,446.66. The borrower reports that she made repeated attempts to get
Ocwen to correct its mistakes, but as of October 2016, Ocwen had still not fixed them.
According to the borrower, this ordeal has caused her a significant amount of stress and
embarrassment: It is very embarrassing to come home and see a notice on my door of
an impending foreclosure especially when I have made and continue to make my
mortgage payments to Ocwen.
29
99. Another borrower complained that Ocwen sent him an inaccurate payoff
quote that caused the borrowers pending property sale to fall through. In a March 31,
2016 letter, Ocwen sent the borrower a payoff statement with a payoff balance of
$88,325.49. A few months later, on September 8, 2016 Ocwen sent the borrower
another payoff statement that listed a payoff balance of $139,149.61$50,000 more
than the payoff quote Ocwen provided just a few months earlier. According to the
borrower, he contacted Ocwen at least 15 times to dispute the payoff amount, but was
not able to get Ocwen to address the matter until he submitted a complaint to the
Bureau and the Texas Attorney General. In a letter dated September 28, 2016, Ocwen
admitted that the figures on the payoff statement sent on September 8, 2016 were
incorrect. In the letter, Ocwen stated that it had generated a new payoff statement with
a corrected payoff amount of $84,569.90more than $55,000 less than the payoff
quote Ocwen provided to the borrower a few weeks earlier. Ocwen did not explain,
though, how the error had occurred in the first place. According to the borrower, due to
the payoff discrepancy, he had to delay the pending sale of the property and the sale fell
through. He had to find another buyer for his property, which he later did.
B. Ocwen has botched borrowers escrow accounts.
100. Ocwen has also failed to perform basic tasks associated with managing
borrowers escrow accounts. Specifically, due to systems failures, control lapses, and
excessive reliance on manual processes, Ocwen has failed to conduct escrow analyses or
accurate escrow analyses; failed to timely send borrowers accurate escrow statements;
and failed to properly account for and apply borrower escrow shortage payments.
101. As of April 2016, Ocwen managed escrow accounts for more than 78
percent of the loans it services. In 2014, Ocwen hired consultants to review and report
30
upon its escrow practices. The resulting report identified more than three million
documented CFPB violations during 2014, including Ocwens failure to: provide
escrow statements or accurate escrow statements to borrowers; conduct escrow analyses
or accurate escrow analyses; and accurately impose hazard and flood insurance.
1. Ocwens obligations under RESPA, the CFPA, and the FDCPA.
102. RESPA and Regulation X generally require servicers to do the following for
escrow accounts that they establish in connection with a federally related mortgage
loan: (1) perform an annual escrow analysis to determine the monthly escrow account
payments for the next computation year; (2) provide an annual statement reflecting the
activity in the escrow account during the escrow account computation year and a
projection of the activity in the account for the next year; (3) refund to the borrower any
surplus disclosed in an escrow analysis or, if the surplus is less than $50, alternatively
credit such surplus against future escrow payments; and (4) potentially seek repayment
for any shortage (i.e., the amount by which a current escrow account balance falls short
of the target balance at the time of an escrow analysis) disclosed in an escrow analysis.
103. Under Regulation X, a servicer is also required to have policies and
procedures reasonably designed to ensure, among other objectives, that the servicer is
providing accurate and timely disclosures to a borrower as required by applicable law,
such as escrow statements required under Regulation X.
104. In addition, the CFPA and FDCPA prohibit servicers from engaging in
unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices related to escrow and debt collection
activities.
31
2. Ocwen has failed to comply with RESPA, the CFPA, and the
FDCPA.
105. Ocwen has failed to comply with RESPA, the CFPA, and/or the FDCPA in
at least five ways.
106. First, as of mid-2014, Ocwen had failed to conduct annual escrow analyses
within the required time period for up to 230,000 delinquent borrowers and up to
60,000 borrowers who had filed for bankruptcy, in violation of Regulation X.
107. According to the Head of Ocwens Escrow Department, until at least July
or August of 2014, Ocwen did not conduct these annual analyses for borrowers in
delinquency.
108. Ocwens failure to conduct escrow analyses for borrowers in delinquency
also impacted the accuracy of its borrowers payoff and reinstatement quotes. Because
REALServicings calculation of delinquent borrowers payoff and reinstatement quotes
the amount they need to pay to respectively payoff or reinstate their loan to become
currentdepends in part on borrowers escrow balances, REALServicing miscalculated
the payoff and reinstatement quotes for many of the loans for which Ocwen did not
conduct an escrow analysis. Ocwens failure to conduct escrow analyses resulted in
Ocwen providing up to 5,000 delinquent borrowers with inaccurate reinstatement
quotes.
109. In some instances, Ocwen failed to perform or timely perform escrow
analyses during the pendency of a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Further, Ocwen failed to
service its loans in accordance with bankruptcy protections and has attempted to collect
purported escrow shortages or arrears in violation of bankruptcy orders and rules.
32
110. In June 2016, Ocwens Head of Bankruptcy testified that more than
22,000 borrowers in bankruptcy were impacted by Ocwens failure to conduct a timely
escrow analysis and that Ocwen is currently attempting to remediate these borrowers.
Ocwens consumer complaint data indicates that, for the year of April 2015 to April
2016, at least 8,000 of these 22,000 impacted borrowers complained to Ocwen.
111. In many instances, even when Ocwen has performed escrow analyses on
borrowers accounts, Ocwen has either: (1) failed to send escrow statements to
borrowers because of REALServicing system deficiencies; or (2) sent inaccurate escrow
statements. Consequently, Ocwen has failed to maintain reasonably designed policies
and procedures to ensure that borrowers receive timely and accurate escrow statements.
112. As a result, in mid-2014, Ocwen performed escrow analyses for an
estimated 10,000 to 20,000 borrowers but then failed to generate or timely send the
required escrow statements to these borrowers within the required year.
113. When Ocwen has sent escrow statements, in many instances, the escrow
statements have contained inaccurate information pertaining to the borrowers account
histories, escrow balances, and escrow payments. In September of 2014, Ocwens then
Head of Servicing Compliance acknowledged this failure in internal e-mails:
Escrow notices not compliant with RESPA, not sent

timely or not sent at all are huge and are the
foundation for all else. These are, by the way, the three
biggest borrower communication issues across the board for
Ocwen - required content not included, letter not sent, or
letter not sent timely. This is estimated to impact
800,000 borrowers or 52% of the Ocwen customer
base. (Emphases added.)
114. Third, Ocwen has failed to timely process escrow shortage paymentsi.e.,
payments that borrowers made at Ocwens request to satisfy a shortage or deficiency in
33
their escrow accountsthat Ocwen needed to pay the borrowers insurance or tax
disbursements, in violation of Regulation X.
115. Since 2014, Ocwens personnel has manually entered a comment code in
REALServicing when the borrower has paid an escrow shortage. As Ocwens auditors
found in a March 30, 2016 audit, however, Ocwen did not have adequate controls over
the entry of these comment codes and therefore Ocwen did not catch when its personnel
failed to manually enter appropriate comment codes relating to escrow shortages. As
Ocwens auditors found, this resulted in the continued collection of escrow shortage
amounts that borrowers already paid. Specifically, Ocwen failed to timely process
escrow shortage payments for what Ocwen estimates to be 5,000 to 10,000 borrowers.
116. Fourth, in many instances, Ocwen has miscalculated borrowers escrow
amounts or mistakenly imposed escrow requirements, resulting in Ocwen charging,
collecting, or attempting to collect, through communications to borrowers, incorrect
escrow amounts.
117. Ocwen has miscalculated borrowers escrow amounts by mistakenly
paying borrowers insurance premium charges twice; disbursing borrowers insurance
premiums to the wrong insurance companies; creating escrow accounts even though
borrowers were already paying their insurance premiums or taxes directly to their
insurance companies or taxing authorities; and failing to account for escrow amounts or
accurate escrow amounts in borrowers loan modification payment amounts (e.g.,
borrowers modified monthly mortgage payments), which borrowers learn of only after
accepting the new modified amount.
34
118. In the bankruptcy context, Ocwen has also failed to generate accurate
escrow amounts. In late 2014, the Head of Ocwens Escrow Department wrote in an
email, which was forwarded to Ocwens Chief Executive Officer:
I've stressed importance of getting the BK escrow

balance issues fixed, but no confirmation of root
cause or target correction date . . . . It's a system issue
because a bucket that determines the amount of money that
a customer sends for their monthly payment can change with
no record of why on the system . . . . Please help get the
importance across on this issue. If this is not fixed, I
cannot recommend that we move to analyze BK for the
portfolio. Even with a control report to catch them, there is
still risk the balance will be wrong when you actually analyze
the account. (Emphases added.)
119. In late 2014, Ocwens then Head of Servicing also emailed Ocwens Chief
Executive Officer and asked for additional consulting resources to handle Ocwens
escrow deficiencies because, as Ocwens Head of Servicing Operations reported: you
are familiar with this issue - the BK escrow balance bucket is wrong and requires every
BK loan to be manually reviewed and we can still have errors.
120. Fifth, as a result of Ocwens above failures, Ocwen has communicated,
orally and in writing, inaccurate information to borrowers about escrow amounts,
reinstatement amounts, and payoff amounts. These representations are material to
borrowers managing their mortgages and are likely to mislead borrowers acting
reasonably under the circumstances.
3. Ocwens escrow failures have caused significant borrower harm.
121. Ocwens escrow errors have caused significant harm to borrowers,
including the costs and emotional distress that borrowers suffer when attempting to get
Ocwen to correct its mistakes.
35
122. This type of harm can disproportionately affect borrowers in bankruptcy.
As Ocwens former Head of Servicing Compliance testified:
If you have a borrower who is sixty days down or in BK

[bankruptcy], if an analysis is done and they find that the
escrow account is short and the payment has to go up by fifty
bucks..If you've got somebody that's sixty days down or in
BK [bankruptcy] and all of a sudden, because of a shortage in
the escrow account, their payment goes up by fifty bucks,
that can make a big difference. So it can have a
disproportionate impact because they're already on the ropes
financially.
123. From April 2015 to April 2016, Ocwen received more than 53,000
complaints relating to its handling of escrow accounts. Ocwen determined it made
numerous errors in the following categories: Escrow Analysis Needed, Last Analysis
Incorrect; Escrow Payment Change Inquiry; Escrow Info Incorrect or Not Set Up;
Escrow Analysis Needed; Escrow Overage Not Received; Escrow Payment Change
Dispute; Escrow Analysis Needed due to Payment; Negative Escrow Balance;
Escrow Analysis Requested due to Refund; and Taxes Escrowed- Paid on Wrong
Parcel.
124. One borrower contacted Ocwen multiple times to complain about an
incorrect, inflated escrow deficiency. The borrower had previously filed for bankruptcy,
and by a bankruptcy court order on June 1, 2015, his account was deemed current with
an escrow deficiency of $530.67. Despite the court order, Ocwen continued to report an
escrow deficiency of $8,468.03. The borrower complained repeatedly to Ocwen, but to
no avail. In March 2016, the borrower filed a complaint against Ocwen with the Bureau
and the Texas Attorney General. In a response letter dated June 3, 2016, Ocwen
acknowledged that, per the June 1, 2015 court order, the borrowers account should
have been deemed current with an escrow shortage of only $530.67. Ocwen also
36
admitted that it had sent the borrower two escrow statements that reflected an
incorrect escrow account balance deficiency and apologized for any frustrations [the
borrower had] incurred as a result of the error. Ocwen agreed to make corrections to
the borrowers account, run a new escrow analysis, waive all fees and expenses that
Ocwen had charged to the account, and amend any negatively reported credit
information.
125. The complaint submitted by another borrower typifies the myriad of
payment processing, escrow, and insurance errors Ocwen makes, and how they can
drive borrowers into foreclosure. The borrower complained about the following series of
errors:
When the borrower entered into a loan modification in April of 2016, his
principal balance increased by more than $161,000, but Ocwen was unable to
explain why his balance increased by this amount;
Even though the borrower made his required monthly modification payments on
time, Ocwen repeatedly failed to post his payments on time or at all;
Ocwen charged the borrower for flood insurance that the borrower did not need
because his property was not in flood zone; and
Ocwen then erroneously attempted to foreclose on the borrower.
126. In a letter dated February 10, 2017, Ocwen admitted to multiple errors in
the process:
Ocwen explained that the increase in the borrowers principal balance when his
loan was modified was because the borrower had a negative escrow balance of
$88,124.55 and $124,912.71 had been capitalized during modification. But Ocwen
did not explain why the borrowers principal balance had increased to $161,000.
37
Ocwen admitted, though, that the negative escrow balance was wrong and based
on erroneous charges it imposed on the borrower for lender-placed flood and
hazard insurance: When the modification was completed the calculations used
Lenders Placed Flood Insurance and Lenders Placed Hazard Insurance for
multiple years that were not necessarily due.
As a result of these erroneous charges, Ocwen determined that the borrower
actually had a positive escrow balance or surplus of $36,788.16 in his escrow
account, not an negative escrow balance or deficiency of more than $88,000.
127. In light of these errors, Ocwen stated that it would be re-modifying the
loans current terms accordingly and would attempt to waive the foreclosure fees it had
imposed on the borrowers account. On March 24, 2017, the foreclosure proceedings
against the borrower were voluntarily dismissed.
128. This borrowers experience also illustrates the types of harm that Ocwens
errors impose on borrowers. The borrower described the ordeal as follows:
I spent one full day a week for the last three and a half years
dealing with Ocwen, this includes calling the company
mainly waiting on the phone on hold and talking to
individuals at their call center . . . and faxing and emailing.
Recently I have spent a large amount of time and money
dealing with the foreclosure proceedings. The costs and time
included attorney fees and paying for my own counsel, which
cost between $6,000 and $8,000, to respond to the Notice of
Foreclosure, amongst other costs.
C. Ocwen has mishandled borrowers hazard insurance.
129. Ocwen has failed to make timely payments of borrowers hazard insurance
premiums and serviced loans based on inaccurate insurance data that has led to
wrongful insurance premium charges.
38
1. Ocwens obligations under RESPA, the CFPA, and FDCPA.
130. Under RESPA and Regulation X, if a borrowers monthly payment
includes a payment for hazard insurance, such as homeowners insurance, wind
insurance, or other types of property-related insurance, then the servicer must generally
make disbursements in a timely manner, on or before the deadline to avoid a penalty, as
long as the borrowers payment is not more than 30 days overdue.
131. In addition, the CFPA and FDCPA prohibit servicers from engaging in
unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices related to debt collection activities and
in connection with mortgage servicing, including in the context of charges its imposes
relating to borrowers insurance policies, such as flood insurance policies.
2. Ocwen has failed to comply with its RESPA, CFPA, and FDCPA
obligations.
132. Ocwen has failed to comply with RESPA, the CFPA, and FDCPA in at least
three ways.
133. First, in numerous instances since September 2014, Ocwen has failed to
properly disburse borrowers payments to their hazard insurance companies. Due to
syncing and updating failures between REALServicing and Ocwens insurance vendors
system, Ocwens insurance vendor did not recognize that numerous Ocwen borrowers
had escrow accounts and therefore failed to make disbursements to these borrowers
insurance companies. In other instances, incorrect account data in REALServicing has
resulted in Ocwen making incorrect disbursements for borrowers insurance policies.
Ocwen, for example, made double payments (out of borrowers accounts) for the same
insurance policy on approximately 3,275 accounts, disbursed premiums to wrong
39
payees, and failed to timely disburse funds to pay approximately 40,000 insurance
premiums.
134. Ocwens failures have resulted in the lapse of hazard insurance coverage
for more than 10,000 borrowers. As of March 2015, more than:
1,500 of these borrowers were able to reinstate their insurance policy, but had to
pay a higher premium;
3,000 of these borrowers received letters from Ocwen indicating that it was going
to impose force-placed insurance on their loans because they lacked hazard
insurance;
500 of these borrowers had force-placed insurance imposed on their loans by
Ocwen; and
100 of these borrowers were foreclosed upon by Ocwen.
135. For borrowers who were forced to pay a more expensive premium to
reinstate or obtain new hazard insurance coverage, Ocwens insurance vendor ultimately
agreed to provide a credit to the borrower to cover the increase in premium for at least
three years.
136. Second, Ocwens use of inaccurate insurance data to service borrowers
loans has led it to charge borrowers for insurance premiums for insurance policies that
borrowers were not required to maintain. For example, Ocwen has repeatedly used
inaccurate flood insurance data to service its loans.
137. In early 2014, a large bank servicer who transferred the subservicing rights
of its loans to Ocwen audited a sample of loans where Ocwen had force-placed flood
insurance policies on borrowers properties. For approximately half of the loans it
tested, the large bank servicer found that Ocwen had imposed force-placed flood
40
insurance on borrowers homes, despite the fact that the large banks records indicated
that the borrowers already had their own flood insurance policies in place.
138. In late 2014, when Ocwen reviewed its escrow processes, it also found that
it had [i]nconsistent and/or incomplete flood determination data loaded for all loans
on REALServicing and that [a]ccurate flood determination data is required to ensure
appropriate tracking of flood insurance.
139. In early 2015, when Ocwen audited flood zone data among its various
service providers, it found more than 3,000 loans for which the flood-zone-related data
in REALServicing was inaccurate. In July of 2015, Ocwens auditors also concluded that
Ocwen lacks sufficient controls to ensure lender-placed flood insurance policies do not
exceed regulatory required coverage amounts. Ocwens auditors also reviewed a sample
of 40 loans where the property was located in a flood zone and noted: there were
several loans where the lender-placed flood insurance policy amounts exceeded the
required statutory or investor minimum coverage. Further, there were instances where
gap insurance policies were created, even though the customer independently purchased
sufficient flood coverage.
140. Third, based on Ocwens above insurance-related failures, Ocwen has
communicated, orally and in writing, inaccurate information to borrowers about the
amount or whether insurance premium charges are due from borrowers. These
representations are material to borrowers managing their mortgages and are likely to
mislead borrowers acting reasonably under the circumstances.
41
3. Ocwens insurance failures have caused significant borrower

harm.
141. Ocwens insurance failures have caused substantial financial and
emotional harm to borrowers. From April 2015 to April 2016, Ocwen received
complaints from more than 19,000 borrowers related to its management of borrowers
insurance policies. Ocwen found that it had made numerous errors relating to force-
placed insurance imposed on borrowers accounts, borrowers hazard insurance not
being paid, and insurance refunds not being timely refunded or paid to borrowers.
142. For example, one borrower complained to Ocwen that it had erroneously
force-placed flood insurance on his property. According to the borrower, he had to take
out a loan to pay the more than $4,300 cost of the flood insurance policy. In a May 3,
2016 letter, Ocwen admitted that [i]n review of the account, [the force-placed flood
insurance policy] was due to an incorrect loan number provided by the insurance
company.
143. Another borrowers experience highlights the difficulty borrowers have
had in getting Ocwen to correct its insurance errors, as well as the downstream effects
these errors can have on borrowers escrow accounts and payments amounts. This
borrower complained to Ocwen multiple times about her escrow payments, but was not
able to resolve her complaints until she submitted a complaint through her state
regulator. In a May 8, 2015 letter responding to the borrower and the state regulator,
Ocwen admitted that it had made a duplicative disbursement for windstorm hazard
insurance, resulting in the borrower being overcharged for insurance. In addition,
Ocwen conceded that the duplicate wind insurance payment had caused her escrow
42
balance to appear artificially low, which resulted in Ocwen incorrectly increasing the
borrowers monthly payment to account for the purported shortage.
D. Ocwen has mishandled borrowers private mortgage insurance.
144. Ocwen has also failed to timely cancel borrowers private mortgage
insurance (PMI). Borrowers are generally required to purchase PMI when they obtain
a mortgage but have a down payment of less than 20 percent, or when they refinance
their mortgage but have less than 20 percent equity in their property.
145. Under HPA, servicers are required to automatically terminate a borrowers
requirement to pay PMI on the termination date, the date when the principal balance
of the mortgage is first scheduled to reach 78 percent of the original value of the
property or, if the borrower is not current as of the termination date, the first day of the
first month beginning after the date that the borrower becomes current on the loan.
146. Since 2014, Ocwen has failed to comply with the HPA by failing to timely
terminate borrowers PMI after learning that the termination data contained in
REALServicing was often unreliable or missing altogether. Ocwen ultimately
overcharged borrowers approximately $1.2 million for PMI premiums, which Ocwen
later refunded to borrowers.
E. Ocwen has unlawfully marketed and processed payments for

add-on products.
147. Since at least 2011, Ocwen has been directly and materially involved in
marketing and processing payments from consumers for at least 109 add-on products.
These products include identity theft protection products, credit monitoring, and other
financial advisory products or services.
43
1. Ocwens role in marketing and processing payments for add-on

products.
148. Until it stopped marketing add-on products in 2013, Ocwen marketed
add-on products to the borrowers whose loans it serviced. Among other things, Ocwen:
assisted in the development of add-on product solicitations; reviewed and approved
each add-on product solicitation; and identified the borrowers whom Ocwen and its
add-on product vendor would target for a particular marketing campaign.
2. Ocwen has failed to comply with the CFPA by enrolling borrowers

into add-on products through misleading solicitations.
149. Ocwen has sent borrowers misleading solicitations to enroll them into
add-on products.
150. One solicitation was in the form of a voucher for $40 worth of gasoline.
This solicitation did not clearly or conspicuously disclose that to actually redeem the
voucher, the borrower had to enroll in the add-on product and remain in it for at least
one year, during which time the borrower would be obligated to pay a monthly fee of
$14.95 per month. The solicitation also did not clearly or conspicuously disclose that the
borrower would receive the $40 in four separate $10 vouchers provided quarterly. This
information was listed in small print on the second page of the solicitation, and not on
the face of the enrollment voucher that the borrower signs and submits.
151. Ocwen also sent a solicitation that appeared to be a check from Ocwen
made out to the borrower. This check solicitation came in a fold and tear envelope and
included a prominent Ocwen logo in the return address section of the envelope. The face
of the check included a date, a check number, a routing number, and was made payable
to the borrower. The solicitation only disclosed in small print directly above the check
44
amount, and in small print on the back of the check, that, by cashing the check, the
borrower was agreeing to enroll in an add-on product.
152. Ocwen has also enrolled borrowers into add-on products without proof of
their affirmative consent. Ocwen did not require its add-on product vendors to provide
proof that a borrower agreed to enroll in the add-on product before Ocwen began billing
and collecting payments from the borrower for the add-on product. As a result, unless
Ocwen specifically requested a copy of the call recording or other proof of enrollment,
Ocwen did not know whether the borrower actually agreed to enroll in the add-on
product. And if a borrower complained that he or she did not agree to enroll in the add-
on product, Ocwen has stated that: Sometimes by not responding to [an add-on
product] vendor, the vendor assumes you accepted the coverage.
153. In addition to its role in marketing and enrolling borrowers into add-on
products through misleading solicitations, Ocwen processed payments, including billing
and collecting payments, from these borrowers for these products.
3. Ocwens solicitation, enrollment, and payment processing

practices for add-on products have caused significant borrower
harm.
154. Ocwens role in marketing and processing payments from borrowers for
add-on products has resulted in significant financial harm to borrowers. In many
instances, borrowers paid for add-on products that they were misled into enrolling in.
155. Ocwens borrower complaint records reveal that numerous borrowers
contacted Ocwen to complain that they never agreed to enroll in the add-on products.
Borrowers also complained that, after questioning Ocwen about the add-on charges,
they learned that Ocwen enrolled borrowers into such products after the borrowers
45
cashed vouchers or checks, even though borrowers were unaware that cashing such
vouchers or checks would result in their enrollment in the add-on products.
F. Ocwen has failed to properly identify and communicate with

successors in interest.
156. Between January 2014 and mid-2015, Ocwen failed to implement policies
and procedures that were reasonably designed to meet the objective of Ocwen properly
handling accounts for successors in interest to a deceased borrower (successors),
particularly when successors were applying for loss mitigation assistance. As a result,
Ocwen failed to properly recognize individuals as successors, denied loss mitigation
assistance to, and, in some instances, ultimately conducted foreclosure sales upon the
loans of successors who may have been eligible for a loan modification or other loss
mitigation options.
1. Ocwens obligations under Regulation X.
157. Under Regulation X, servicers are required to have policies and
procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure upon notification of the death of a
borrower the servicer can promptly identify and facilitate communication with a
successor with respect to the property secured by the deceased borrowers mortgage
loan.
158. When a borrower passes away, a successor to the borrowers property
interest may seek to communicate with a servicer about the deceased borrowers
mortgage loan. A successor may want information about the status of the mortgage loan
obligation prior to assuming the mortgage. A successor may also apply for loss
mitigation assistance prior to assuming the mortgage in order to determine whether the
mortgage loan obligation is affordable for the successor.
46
2. Ocwen has failed to comply with its obligations under Regulation

X.
159. Between January 2014 and mid-2015, appropriate Ocwen business units
did not have policies and procedures to ensure that Ocwen handled successors in
interest as required under Regulation X. As a result, when potential successors called
Ocwen, its call center personnel did not provide clear and complete information and
generally only requested death certificates, a last will and testament, and/or a probate
order from potential successors, even though Ocwen has required additional
documentation, such as a letter of testamentary or a letter of administration, to establish
that an individuals status as a successor.
160. Ocwen has also lacked reasonably-designed policies and procedures to
ensure that it promptly identified and facilitated communications with a successor
about the appropriate steps and information required for a successor to assume a
mortgage and obtain a loan modification. Prior to mid-2015, certain Ocwen business
units, such as Loss Mitigation, had no policies and procedures relating to successors.
Other business units did have policies and procedures, but they were deficient. As a
result, when successors have contacted Ocwen to apply for loss mitigation assistance,
Ocwen personnel have provided them with incomplete or inaccurate information about
Ocwens specific requirements regarding the loss mitigation application and assumption
process.
3. Ocwens failure to comply with its Regulation X obligations has

caused significant harm to successors.
161. Ocwens failure to maintain reasonably-designed policies and procedures
has made it more difficult for, and in many instances actually prevented, successors
from obtaining necessary information about the status of a deceased borrowers
47
mortgage and potential loss mitigation options. Ocwen has estimated that, when it
incorrectly denied loan modifications on the ground that there was no successor when
Ocwens own records indicated that there was a successor, it has harmed at least 202
borrowers and that there was probable harm to 195 borrowers. As of January 2016,
Ocwen had also initiated foreclosure proceedings on at least 314 of the loans that it
identified as potentially being impacted by its failures.
162. For example, one potential successor complained that Ocwen had
provided her with misinformation about the requirements for receiving a loan
modification for her deceased mother-in-laws property. According to the potential
successor, when she contacted Ocwen to inform it that her mother-in-law had passed
away and that she and her husband wanted to request loss mitigation assistance to keep
the property, Ocwen told her that she and her husband would not need to assume the
mortgage. According to the potential successor, Ocwen later informed herafter she had
made all required payments under a trial modificationthat if she wanted to receive a
permanent modification, she and her husband would have to assume the mortgage. The
potential successor also complained that Ocwen had wrongfully charged foreclosure fees
to the account, even though Ocwen records showed it had placed a foreclosure hold on
the account. The potential successor complained to Ocwen, which directed the potential
successor to its foreclosure firm, to explain the foreclosure fees. When the potential
successor contacted Ocwens foreclosure firm about the foreclosure fees, however, she
reports that the firm told her that it had not done any work because the foreclosure was
on hold.
48
G. Ocwen has failed to protect borrowers when it has made

servicing errors.
163. Ocwens errors at every loan servicing stage have made it even more
important that the company adequately investigate and respond to borrower complaints
and notices of errors. These functions can act as a safety net to catch borrowers before
they are further harmed by a servicers unlawful conduct. Here, too, Ocwen has failed
borrowers. Since April 2015, Ocwen has received more than 580,000 complaints and
written notices of error from more than 300,000 different borrowers.
164. Since 2014, Ocwen has routinely failed to reasonably investigate, and,
when appropriate, make corrections in response to borrower complaints and notices of
errors. These failures have caused serious harm to consumers.
1. Ocwens obligations under Regulation X.
165. Under Regulation X, servicers are required to have policies and
procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure that Ocwen investigates, responds to,
and, as appropriate, makes corrections in response to complaints by borrowers. Written
borrower notices that are sent to an Ocwen-designated address and allege certain types
of errors are considered a qualified written request and notice of error (collectively
NOE) and entitle borrowers to additional protections under RESPA and Regulation X.
For both complaints and written NOEs, servicers generally are required to conduct a
reasonable investigation of the alleged error and, as appropriate, make corrections.
2. Ocwen has failed to comply with its obligations under Regulation

X.
166. Ocwen has failed to comply with the requirements of Regulation X in at
least two ways.
49
167. First, Ocwen has failed to implement policies and procedures that are
reasonably designed to meet the consumer complaint handling objectives to respond,
investigate, and, where appropriate, correct errors.
168. Per Ocwens policy, Ocwen call center personnel are supposed to escalate
repeat complaints regarding the same issue to a supervisor or a designated call center
employee, known as the borrowers Escalation Relationship Manager. But, due to
insufficient policies and procedures and an overreliance on rigid scripting, Ocwen call
center personnel have failed to adequately resolve the complaint or escalate the call for
investigation and correction of the error. As a result, borrowers have been forced to call
Ocwen multiple times about the same complaint before the call center personnel
escalate the matter for investigation and error correction.
169. In April 2015, Ocwen implemented new policies and procedures to address
the difficulty its call center personnel had in recognizing and escalating borrower
complaints. These policies and procedures, however, were not reasonably designed to
handle consumer complaints. For example, instead of requiring Ocwen to identify a
complaint the first time a borrower calls in, the new policies and procedures place the
burden on the borrower to complain multiple timesat least five times in nine days
before Ocwen will automatically escalate their complaint for resolution to an Escalation
Relationship Manager.
170. As a result, many borrowers have been forced to call Ocwen multiple times
before Ocwen investigated and corrected their error. For example, of the more than
450,000 complaints that Ocwen processed from April 2015 through April 2016,
approximately 68 percent involved borrowers who contacted Ocwen multiple times
within a 15-day period; approximately 40 percent involved borrowers who contacted
50
Ocwen three or more times within a 15-day period; and approximately 17 percent
involved borrowers who contacted Ocwen five or more times within a 15-day period.
171. Ocwens policies and procedures have not been reasonably designed to
ensure that its personnel conduct reasonable investigations of the alleged error in
complaints. Ocwens policies and procedures, for instance, direct Ocwen personnel to
rely on the information in REALServicing to investigate complaints. Thus, Ocwens
ability to appropriately investigate complaints is largely dependent on the accuracy of
the information contained within REALServicing. Further, Ocwens policies and
procedures provide little to no guidance to personnel on how to document the step-by-
step basis for their conclusions regarding the validity of an alleged error.
172. Ocwens policies and procedures also provide little or no guidance to
personnel about how to correct errors. For example, Ocwens policies and procedures do
not detail what factors personnel should consider when recommending remediation,
including what types of harms and downstream impacts to borrowers they should
consider. At best, Ocwens policies and procedures identify certain forms of remediation
such as fee waivers and credit reporting corrections, but do not inform personnel when
these or other forms of remediation are appropriate. Without such guidance, Ocwen
personnel are left to their own discretion to determine whether an error has occurred,
and, if so, how to correct the error.
173. Second, as a result of Ocwens above policies and procedures, which also
apply to NOEs, Ocwen has failed to conduct reasonable investigations and/or, where
appropriate, make corrections of errors in borrowers complaints and NOEs. Among
other things, Ocwen has relied on inaccurate data in REALServicing, and the Ocwen
personnel who investigate borrowers complaints and NOEs are not required to cross-
51
reference Ocwens known and documented systemic errors, such as the payment
processing and application, escrow, and insurance errors, and thus do not consider that
information in their investigations. Further, in responding to certain complaints and
NOEs, Ocwen has simply parroted back the information in REALServicing, including
details set forth in payment and escrow histories, without addressing the errors
presented by borrowers.
3. Ocwens consumer complaint and NOE handling failures have

caused significant borrower harm.
174. Ocwens failure to properly investigate consumer complaints and NOEs
and correct errors has caused significant consumer harm.
175. Ocwens consumer complaint and NOE failures are illustrated by the
experience of several borrowers, including those described in Paragraphs 97, 98, 99,
124, 125, 126, 142, 143, 162, 211, and 212, who complained to Ocwen multiple times in
order to try to get Ocwen to correct errors.
176. One borrower repeatedly contacted Ocwen throughout 2014 to have
Ocwen correct an error with her escrow account. When the borrowers loan was
transferred to Ocwen in August 2013, Ocwen set up an escrow account and incorrectly
began making disbursements for property taxes and property insurance, even though
the borrower had a tax deferment as part of a program for low income-seniors and paid
her own property insurance. In July 2014, Ocwen sent the borrower a notice of default,
which included an escrow balance of $3,841.92, late fees, and other fees and charges.
After the borrower was unable to get Ocwen to resolve her dispute, she submitted,
through AARPs Legal Counsel for the Elderly, a Qualified Written Request and NOE
regarding the escrow mistakes and the related errors. Ocwens response only contained
52
generic account information and did not correct the errors. It was only after the
borrowers counsel sent Ocwen another complaint to the Bureau in October 2014 that
Ocwen responded, in a letter dated December 17, 2014, in which it stated it would
remove the borrowers escrow balance, waive late fees, and reduce the borrowers
payment amount to $302.43, which was the original and correct amount of the
borrowers payment.
H. Ocwen has engaged in unlawful foreclosure practices.
177. Ocwen has long touted its ability to service and modify distressed loans,
claiming, helping homeowners is what we do. In fact, Ocwen has failed to accurately
maintain foreclosure-related information necessary to ensure that it provides borrowers
with required foreclosure protections. As a result of these and other failures, Ocwen has
wrongfully initiated foreclosure proceedings and wrongfully conducted foreclosure
sales.
1. Ocwens obligations under Regulation X and the CFPA.
178. Regulation X provides borrowers with a variety of protections when they
apply for a loan modification or other loss mitigation option, such as a short sale, in
connection with a mortgage secured by their principal residence. Several of these
protections are triggered once the borrower submits an oral or written application for a
loss mitigation option.
179. Under Regulation X, if a servicer receives a loss mitigation application 45
days or more before a foreclosure sale, it must provide the borrower an
acknowledgement letter within five days that states whether the application is
complete, and, if it is not, what additional documents and information the borrower
must submit to complete the application (Acknowledgment Letter). A loss mitigation
53
application is complete under Regulation X when the servicer has received all of the
information it requires from a borrower to evaluate the borrowers application for all
available loss mitigation options (Complete Application). An application is facially
complete under Regulation X if a borrower provides the information and documentation
that the servicer requests in the Acknowledgment Letter or if no additional information
is requested in the Acknowledgment Letter (Facially Complete Application).
180. Regulation X also requires that, if a servicer receives a Complete
Application more than 37 days before a foreclosure sale, it must evaluate the borrower
for all available loss mitigation options and provide the borrower with a written notice
within 30 days indicating, among other things, whether it will offer the borrower any
loss mitigation options (Evaluation Notice).
181. Regulation X also includes requirements relating to a servicers access to
and ability to exchange information with its service providers. Regulation X generally
requires a servicer to, among other things, have policies and procedures reasonably
designed to ensure that the servicer is providing appropriate servicer personnel with
access to accurate and current documents and information reflecting actions performed
by its service providers, such as foreclosure attorneys responsible for handling Ocwens
foreclosure proceedings.
182. Regulation X also generally prohibits servicers from, among other things,
commencing a first notice or filing of a foreclosure (First Filing), obtaining a
foreclosure judgment, or conducting a foreclosure sale if: (1) the servicer discovers that
additional information or corrections to a previously submitted document are required
to complete a Facially Complete Application and the borrower has not had a reasonable
opportunity to complete the application; (2) the servicer has timely received a Complete
54
Application but has not yet evaluated the application; (3) the time for the borrower to
respond to a loss mitigation offer or to appeal a loan modification denial has not
expired; or (4) the borrower is performing upon a loss mitigation agreement (e.g., a trial
loan modification or short-term payment forbearance program).
183. In addition, a servicer is prohibited from engaging in unfair, deceptive,
and abusive acts and practices, including in the context of foreclosure activity, under the
CFPA.
2. Ocwens deficient foreclosure policies and procedures violate

Regulation X.
184. Ocwen uses foreclosure attorneys to provide it with various foreclosure
services, including commencing and completing foreclosures upon borrowers loans,
and placing foreclosure holds on borrowers accounts to prevent the initiation of a
foreclosure or obtain a stay or postponent of a foreclosure. Ocwens policies and
procedures relating to its foreclosure attorneys are deficient, however, as they fail to
ensure that Ocwen receives accurate and current information reflecting its foreclosure
attorneys actions.
185. From at least 2014 through at least April 2016, Ocwen has been aware that
it has not received timely or accurate information from its foreclosure attorneys. For
example, in 2014, Ocwens auditors found that one of Ocwens largest foreclosure law
firms in Florida had failed to timely update Ocwens system with current foreclosure
sale dates for 100 percent of the loan files tested. In response to this finding, the firm
explained that it continues for have periodic, on-going access issues within [Ocwens
systems], which at times hinders our ability to comply with the several issues noted
during the audit. In another 2014 audit, Ocwen found that another of Ocwens Florida
55
foreclosure law firms had failed to upload documents to Ocwens system for 100 percent
of the loan files tested.
186. The deficiency of Ocwens policies and procedures was highlighted again
in 2015 when Ocwens auditors found that its foreclosure law firms had failed to provide
Ocwen with timely and accurate information. For example:
In a 2015 audit of one the Ocwens foreclosure law firms in Florida referenced in
Paragraph 185, Ocwen found that the firm was still not accurately updating
Ocwens system with the correct foreclosure milestone dates. Ocwen described
the impact as follows: When incorrect data is inputted into the system, Ocwen
staff is unaware of the current status of the foreclosure proceedings and presents
data integrity issues. In response to the 2015 audit, the firm pointed out that
transferred loans may contain incorrect dates, but stated that it could not update
those loan files because there was a hold placed on transferred loans.
In another 2015 audit, Ocwen found that of one of its Oregon foreclosure firms
had failed to timely upload documentation to Ocwens system for 80 percent of
the loan files tested. The audit report listed the cause as Some of the Firm
personnel are not familiar with [Ocwens system] document upload.
In another 2015 audit of one of its foreclosure firms in New Jersey, Ocwen found
that the firm had failed to upload all documents to Ocwens systems for 60
percent of the loan files tested result[ing] in missing documentation [in Ocwens
system] for SCRA [Servicemembers Civil Relief Act] and PACER checks. The
audit identified the reason for the failure as: The Firm was unaware of the
requirement for filed and or recorded documentation to be uploaded [to Ocwens
system]. Ocwens auditors also described the impact of the failure: Failure to
56
upload documents to [Ocwens system] affects the [ability of the] servicer to view
and ensure all documents completed by the attorney were accurate.
187. The audit findings for these firms are not outliers. In March 2016, Ocwen
conducted an internal audit of its foreclosure operations and found, for foreclosures
initiated between July and December 2015, that:
Foreclosure documents are not consistently uploaded on [Ocwens system] by
attorney firms. In 15 (13%) of 120 foreclosure initiation events reviewed,
documents were not uploaded to [Ocwens system] by external counsel.
Delays occur in uploading foreclosure related documents on [Ocwens system].
In 12 (30%) of 40 foreclosure initiation events reviewed, documents were
uploaded to [Ocwens system] by external counsel between 3 and 11 days after
event completion.
Publication dates updated in [Ocwens system] by external attorneys do not
accurately reflect the event completion date. A review of 30 foreclosures with a
Publication Completed event date updated in [Ocwens system] identified 18
(60%) where documentation did not support the event completion date in
[Ocwens system].
188. Key Ocwen personnel have also been aware that Ocwens foreclosure
attorneys failure to provide accurate and current information has negatively impacted
Ocwens ability to service loans. In December 2015, Ocwens Head of Loss Mitigation
testified that he became aware earlier in 2015 that Ocwens systems had missing or
inaccurate foreclosure sale dates. He explained that Ocwen Loss Mitigation employees
rely on theforeclosure sale date to, among other things, determine how many days to
grant borrowers to return missing documents in connection with their loss mitigation
57
applications. He further testified that he reached out to Ocwens Head of Foreclosure to
inform him that the Loss Mitigation department needed foreclosure sale dates in the
system and asked him to work with Ocwens foreclosure attorneys to ensure that they
input these dates into Ocwens system, but he was unaware of what actions, if any,
Ocwen took to ensure that this actually occurred.
189. In May 2016, Ocwens Head of Foreclosure also testified that he was aware
that Ocwens foreclosure attorneys had not always provided Ocwen with timely and
accurate foreclosure information. He further testified that:
Some of Ocwens attorney managers tested the accuracy of the data Ocwens
foreclosure firms entered into Ocwens systems, but acknowledged that not all of
Ocwens attorney managers follow this practice and that the practice was not
required by Ocwens policies and procedures.
Ocwens system prevents foreclosure attorneys from making any changes to the
foreclosure sale date when there is foreclosure hold on an account, and that
Ocwen did not have a policy that required its foreclosure attorneys to contact
Ocwen with any updated foreclosure sale date information (since they could not
make changes in the system) when a foreclosure hold was in place.
190. As a result of Ocwens policies and procedure deficiencies, Ocwen has
initiated foreclosures, obtained foreclosure judgments, and conducted foreclosure sales
on borrowers accounts in which Ocwen had placed a foreclosure hold. As of May 2016,
Ocwen has maintained a daily report, which it calls the Dual Tracking Report, that
tracks the date, identity of the borrower, and reasons why Ocwen initiated a foreclosure,
obtained a foreclosure judgment, or conducted a foreclosure sale even though a
borrowers account had a foreclosure hold.
58
191. Below are two charts from one of Ocwens Dual Tracking Reports. The first
chart catalogues instances where Ocwen initiated a foreclosure proceeding even though
Ocwen had placed a foreclosure hold on the loan, a process known as dual tracking.
The chart identifies the reason or root cause for each [d]ual [t]rack violation, such as
attorney proceeded while the file was on hold. The chart shows that, by Ocwens own
analysis, between November 2015 and April 2016, Ocwen attorneys initiated one
hundred and twenty foreclosure proceedings when the subject loan was subject to a
foreclosure hold.
Rootcause for Dual Track violation Post Nov 2015
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Attorney proceeded while Hold not placed within Milestone completed RC Pending Timing issue, loss
the file was on hold timelines prior to FC initiation mitigation trigger within 1
business day of milestone
FC Sale First Legal Judgement
192. The second chart below indicates the reasons that borrowers accounts
were subject to foreclosure holds. It shows that the vast majority of the foreclosure holds
that Ocwen violated were in place because borrowers had submitted a completed loan
modification package, and thus were potentially subject to Regulation X foreclosure
protections.
59
Hold Reason in Pre FC -Post Oct 2015

280
240
200
160
120
80
40
0
3. Ocwen initiated foreclosures and conducted foreclosure sales in

violation of Regulation X and the CFPA.
193. Ocwen has initiated First Filings, obtained foreclosure judgments, and
conducted foreclosure sales in violation of Regulation X and the CFPA in at least five
ways.
194. First, Ocwen has inappropriately made at least one thousand foreclosure
First Filings at the time that it was still evaluating Complete Applications it had
previously and timely received from borrowers on or after January 10, 2014.
195. Second, in numerous instances, Ocwen has inappropriately obtained
foreclosure judgments and conducted foreclosure sales on the homes of borrowers who
had a mortgage secured by their principal residence, had timely sent Ocwen a Complete
Application more than 37 days before a pending foreclosure sale on or after January 10,
2014, and: (1) were still waiting for Ocwen to evaluate their Complete Application; (2)
still had time to accept loss mitigation options that Ocwen had offered to them; or (3)
were performing upon loss mitigation agreements.
60
196. Third, in numerous instances, Ocwen has inappropriately conducted
foreclosure sales on the homes of borrowers who had a mortgage secured by their
principal residence and had timely sent Ocwen a Facially Complete Application more
than 37 days before a pending foreclosure sale on or after January 10, 2014. After these
borrowers submitted Facially Complete Applications, Ocwen determined it needed
additional information. Ocwen sent these borrowers a letter requesting that they submit
the additional information and gave the borrowers a deadline, usually 30 days, to
submit that information, but then foreclosed on the borrowers before that deadline.
197. Fourth, in numerous instances, Ocwen has inappropriately conducted
foreclosure sales on the homes of borrowers before the deadline it provided these
borrowers to submit missing documents. These borrowers had submitted incomplete
applications for loss mitigation assistance. Ocwen sent the borrowers letters requesting
that they submit the missing documents or information and gave the borrowers a
deadline, but then foreclosed before that deadline.
198. Ocwens Head of Loss Mitigation has conceded that foreclosing on
borrowers before the deadlines it communicated to borrowers to submit additional or
missing information is deceptive and confuses borrowers. These representations are
material to borrowers and are likely to mislead borrowers acting reasonably under the
circumstances. These borrowers reasonably interpret Ocwens request for additional or
missing information to evaluate the borrowers loss mitigation applications to mean that
Ocwen will not foreclose on them before the expiration of the deadline Ocwen provided
for submitting the additional or missing information.
199. In an email with the subject Sale Date before Missing Doc Expiration, an
official in Ocwens Loss Mitigation department wrote:
61
Please confirm if our missing letter states that if they dont

send a complete package we will go ahead with sale
irrespective of the missing doc due date. To me that does
not sound right, where we inform the borrower to
send in documents by a date but go ahead with sale
prior to expiration of that date. (Emphasis added.)
The Head of Ocwens Loss Mitigation Department agreed, responding:
If there is no denial on the current instance you

should not be going to sale, period. Even though we
have disclosure language around 37 days before FC and 7th
day at midnight you will get hit with UDAP every
single time you do not follow the rules above. You need to
think like the customer which is without a denial you will
still think you have time. (Emphases added)
200. Fifth, Ocwen has inappropriately conducted foreclosure sales on the
homes of borrowers who were performing upon agreements for loss mitigation options,
such as a loan modification. The borrowers accepted and were performing upon the
terms of the optionsfor example, by making trial payments according to the terms of a
loan modification. Even though the borrowers had been doing everything they were
supposed to do, Ocwen unilaterally breached the terms of its loss mitigation agreements
with borrowers and foreclosed on their loans.
4. Ocwens foreclosure failures have caused significant borrower

harm.
201. Aside from the obvious harm to any borrower whose home is wrongfully
foreclosed upon, Ocwens illegal foreclosure practices have also caused significant
financial harm, emotional distress, negative credit reporting, and other harm to
borrowers.
IV. OCWEN HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE

LOAN INFORMATION TO NEW SERVICERS
202. Since 2015, Ocwen has sold hundreds of thousands of its rights to service
borrowers loans, also referred to as mortgage servicing rights (MSRs), to new

62
mortgage servicers. Ocwen has failed, however, to provide complete and accurate
borrower loan information to the new servicers or to notify new servicers of errors that
are likely to impact the accuracy and completeness of the transferred borrower records.
A. Ocwens obligations under Regulation X.
203. Regulation X requires a transferor servicer to maintain policies and
procedures reasonably designed to ensure that it can timely transfer all information and
documents in its possession or control relating to the transferred loan to the new
servicer in a form and manner that ensures the accuracy of the transferred information
and documents and that enables the new servicer to comply with applicable laws and
the terms of the new servicers obligations to the owner or assignee of the mortgage loan
(investor guidelines).
B. Ocwens failure to comply with Regulation X.
204. Ocwen has failed to comply with Regulation Xs policy and procedure
requirements relating to transfers in at least two ways.
205. The first deficiency in Ocwens policies and procedures relates to the form
and manner in which Ocwen has transferred borrower loan information to new
servicers. As part of a loan transfer, Ocwen provides new servicers with raw loan-level
borrower data, but does not provide adequate means to interpret that data. In
particular, Ocwens policies and procedures do not require it to provide new servicers
with a complete and accurate data dictionary that defines the more than 10,000
comment codes and flags that Ocwen has used to service borrowers loans. Instead,
Ocwens policy calls for the production of a more limited data dictionary that only
includes the current definitions for the comment codes and flags, but omits the historic
definitions of comment codes or flags whose use or meaning has changed over time. As a
63
result, new servicers have no way of knowing the meaning of the codes or flags in
borrower account history or how they were used.
206. Ocwen has also provided new servicers with summary reports for certain
populations of borrowers, such as those in loss mitigation or foreclosure. But these
reports omit critical information that the new servicer needs to provide borrowers with
the protections to which they are entitled under applicable law, and Ocwens policies
and procedures do not require it to provide this information to the new servicer. For
example, prior to November 2015, Ocwen failed to provide information for the loans
being transferred in a form that new servicers could understand whether borrowers had:
A foreclosure sale date close to the transfer date, which new servicers needed in
order to avoid erroneously foreclosing on the borrower, who may have been
entitled to protections under Regulation X or other applicable laws; and
Previously filed for bankruptcy and had obtained a discharge in that proceeding,
which the new servicer would need to know in order to comply with applicable
federal law and bankruptcy court orders.
207. Second, Ocwens policies and procedures have failed to ensure that, prior
to transferring loans to a new servicer, Ocwen has disclosed known inaccuracies
and errors that may or have impacted the accuracy or completeness of the
transferred borrower loan records and the new servicers ability to comply with
applicable law and investor guidelines. Ocwen has not disclosed, for example, errors it
tracks in its Risk Convergence Reports or audit findings that Ocwen knew or should
have known impacted the accuracy or completeness of the loan information and the new
servicers ability to comply with applicable law and investor guidelines.
64
208. Ocwens Head of Servicing Transfers testified, for example, that he was not
aware if Ocwen had disclosed to new servicers that Ocwen had:
Incorrectly calculated certain borrowers reinstatement quotes, including those in
demand letters and foreclosure affidavits;
Failed to credit payments made by up to 10,000 borrowers to satisfy their escrow
shortages;
Failed to make payment changes relating to escrow changes for up to 22,000
borrowers in bankruptcy; and
Initiated unlawful foreclosure proceedings upon borrowers, in violation of
Regulation X.
C. Ocwens failure to transfer complete and accurate borrower

records has caused significant borrower harm.
209. Ocwens failure to transfer complete and accurate borrower records and
disclose known errors to new servicers impacts borrowers after their loans have been
transferred to a new servicer.
210. According to Ocwens records, from April 2015 to April 2016, Ocwen
received more than 6,800 complaints from borrowers related to the transfer of their
loans by Ocwen to a new servicer.
211. For example, one borrower complained that his monthly payment amount
increased by 47 percent when Ocwen failed to correct its escrow errors before
transferring the borrowers loan to a new servicer. In June 2014, Ocwen approved the
borrower for a loan modification agreement that reduced his monthly payment to
$1,639.07. Around November 2015, Ocwen transferred the borrowers loan to a new
servicer. In March 2016, the new servicer conducted an escrow analysis and determined
65
that the borrower had an escrow shortage of $9,164.13, and that, as a result, the
borrowers payment would increase by $777.49, from $1,639.07 to $2,398.54. The
borrower contacted Ocwen when the new servicer was unable to explain why the
borrower had such a large escrow shortage. In a June 1, 2016 letter, Ocwen admitted
that it had made an error in its escrow application at the time of modification. As a
result, Ocwen only capitalized a portion of the borrowers total escrow balance when it
modified the borrowers loan. To correct its error and unbeknownst to the borrower,
Ocwen reduced the balance in the borrowers escrow account two days before
transferring the loan that left the borrowers escrow account with a negative balance of
$4,440.91. The borrower reports that he was eventually forced to retain an attorney, pay
more than $5,000 in legal fees to ensure that Ocwen correct its error, and obtain a new
repayment plan with the new servicer to cover the escrow shortage.
212. Another borrower complained that Ocwen did not transfer complete
information about his payments and loan modification to the new servicer. As a result,
the new servicer refused to recognize the borrowers loan modification and stated that
the borrower owed more than $10,000 in past due payments. When the borrower
complained to Ocwen, it admitted in a letter that the borrower had made his required
modification payments but that Ocwen had failed to properly apply the funds. Ocwen
also admitted that it had been attempting to correct its payment application error
through a reversal request on the borrowers account so it could reapply the borrowers
payments, but had incorrectly processed the reversal request. And then before Ocwen
could complete its second attempt at a reversal request to fix its error, Ocwen had
transferred the loan to the new servicer. Instead of alerting the new servicer to its
mistakes, Ocwen had simply transferred the borrowers loan, leaving the $19,182.69 in
66
payments that the borrower had made pursuant to his loan modification agreement in a
suspense account.
V. OCWEN HAS FAILED TO SUFFICIENTLY REMEDIATE HARM TO

BORROWERS
213. Ocwen is aware that its servicing failures have caused significant harm to
borrowers and that these failures can have devastating consequences.
214. Despite its awareness of the harm it has caused, Ocwen has had no
consistent policy, procedure, or practice for providing borrower remediation, even when
it has identified a systemic failure that could harm numerous borrowers.
215. Ocwen has lacked a systematic process to track and analyze errors it learns
of through borrower complaints or NOEs to determine whether other borrowers may
have been harmed by the same errors. As a result, Ocwen has typically only corrected
errors or provided remediation to those borrowers who have complained (assuming
Ocwen recognizes the call as an actual complaint, investigates, and/or makes a
correction) or submitted an NOE, but generally has not corrected the same or similar
errors for other borrowers who did not complain.
216. Ocwen also has not had policies or procedures requiring it to determine
whether a risk item on its Risk Convergence Report has impacted or harmed borrowers,
or whether borrower remediation is required, before it closes that risk item.
217. Instead, Ocwen has focused on operational remediation to correct the
error and prevent any future impact on borrowers. As a result, in many instances,
Ocwen has failed to identify the borrower population that was impacted by a given risk
item or to provide full remediation to that population. Instead, Ocwen generally
67
provides borrower remediation only when a borrower complains to Ocwen or when a
court or regulator requires Ocwen to provide a borrower with relief.
218. As Ocwens former Head of Servicing Compliance testified in May of 2016:
The company didn't have a policy or a protocol [for borrower

remediation]. And with all of the issues, you saw how many
issues there were [on the Risk Convergence Report], there
just wasn't an appetite to back up and create an approach to
this. Would I have liked that to have happened, I would have
loved it, but it did not happen and there wasn't an appetite
for it.
219. Ocwens appetite for borrower remediation appears to have been further
diminished when the remediation could have a significant financial impact on Ocwen.
For example, in one email, Ocwen personnel discussed Ocwens auditors findings that
Ocwen lacked processes to review and ensure compliance with state laws for negative
amortization relating to adjustable rate mortgages, and whether to review impacted
loans and provide borrowers with remediation. After analyzing the potential $21 million
in costs for Ocwen to remediate, Ocwen declined to do so due to the substantial,
negative financial impact and Legal confirmation that [Privileged material redacted] is
sufficient justification to forego the lookback.
220. Ultimately, Ocwens former Head of Compliance conceded in testimony
that Ocwen should remediate borrowers who were harmed by Ocwens errors and
suffered potential harm. When asked if Ocwen did so, she conceded: Could the
company have done more? Absolutely.
68
VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION ACT
221. Sections 1031 and 1036(a)(1)(B) of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531 and
5536(a)(1)(B), prohibit covered persons from engaging in any unfair, deceptive, or
abusive act or practice.
222. Acts or practices are unfair under the CFPA if the act or practice causes or
is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which are not reasonably avoidable by
consumers and such substantial injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to
consumers or competition. 12 U.S.C. 5531(c).
223. An act or practice is deceptive if it misleads or is likely to mislead the
consumer; the consumers interpretation is reasonable under the circumstances; and the
misleading act or practice is material.
224. Section 1036(a)(1)(A) of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5536(a)(1)(B), prohibits
covered persons from committing any act or omission in violation of a Federal
consumer financial law.
225. Section 1002(14) of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5481(14), defines the FDCPA,
RESPA, TILA, and HPA as Federal consumer financial laws.
COUNT I
Ocwens Use of Inaccurate and Incomplete Information to
Service Loans is Unfair
226. The Bureau incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1-220.
227. In numerous instances since January 2014, Ocwen has used inaccurate
and incomplete information to service borrowers loans because it has input inaccurate
and incomplete information about borrowers into its REALServicing system of record,
REALServicing has generated inaccurate information about borrowers loans due to
69
system deficiencies, and/or Ocwens manual processes have themselves resulted in
errors. This inaccurate and incomplete information relates to borrowers:
a. Loan terms, including interest rate(s), balloon payments, and maturity
dates;
b. Amounts received from and owed by borrowers, including monthly
payments and the date Ocwen received the payments, unpaid fees,
payoff amounts, and reinstatement amounts;
c. Escrow amounts, including borrowers escrow balances, disbursements
made on behalf of borrowers, and escrow shortages;
d. Insurance coverage, disbursements, and amounts due, including
premiums Ocwen charged to borrowers for hazard insurance, flood
insurance, and purchase mortgage insurance; and/or
e. Loss mitigation and foreclosure information, including information
required of borrowers to complete loss mitigation applications, terms
of loan modification agreements, and the dates of pending foreclosure
sales.
228. Ocwens use of inaccurate or incomplete information to service loans
causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers, such as the unlawful
commencement of foreclosures, unlawful foreclosure sales, improper handling of loss
mitigation applications, misapplication of borrowers payments, collection and billing of
inaccurate and incorrect amounts, imposition of inappropriate fees and charges,
inaccurate delinquency statuses, inaccurate negative credit reporting, and/or emotional
distress.
70
229. These injuries cannot be reasonably avoided by consumers, who do not
choose their mortgage servicer, and are not outweighed by countervailing benefits to
consumers or competition.
230. Ocwens acts and practices as described in Paragraph 227 constitute unfair
acts and practices in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C.
5531(a) and (c) and 5536(a)(1)(B).
COUNT II
Ocwens Deceptive Acts and Practices Regarding Loan Terms and Status
232. In numerous instances since January 2014, in the course of servicing
mortgage loans and collecting debts from consumers, Ocwen has represented to
borrowers, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that their loans have
certain unpaid balances; monthly payments; delinquency statuses; unpaid fees;
reinstatement amounts; escrow amounts due; payoff amounts due; insurance amounts
due; and/or other amounts due.
233. In truth and fact, in numerous instances the material representations set
forth in the above-referenced Paragraph 232 were false, misleading, or were not
substantiated at the time the representations were made, including but not limited to
representations made where Ocwen had knowledge or reason to believe that:
a. The prior servicer data and records upon which it was relying were
inaccurate or missing but it had failed to obtain or review information
substantiating the accuracy of the data prior to collecting or foreclosing
on borrowers loans;
71
b. Its system of record contained inaccurate information due to system
errors and limitations, manual entry errors, and incorrect information
provided by service providers but it had failed to obtain or review
information substantiating the accuracy of the data prior to collecting
or foreclosing on borrowers loans; and/or
c. Consumers had disputed, challenged, or questioned the validity or
accuracy of Ocwens information but it had failed to obtain or review
information substantiating the accuracy of the information, or failed to
consider the consumers disputes, prior to collecting or foreclosing on
borrowers loans.
234. Ocwens acts and practices as described in Paragraphs 232-233 constitute
deceptive acts and practices in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12
U.S.C. 5531(a) and 5536(a)(1)(B).
COUNT III
Ocwens Unfair Foreclosure Practices
236. In numerous instances since January 2014, in connection with servicing
mortgage loans, Ocwen has unilaterally breached contracts with borrowers by
foreclosing on their loans even though the borrowers were performing on agreements on
loss mitigation options.
237. Ocwens actions caused or were likely to cause substantial injury to
borrowers that borrowers could not reasonably avoid themselves and that are not
outweighed by countervailing benefits to borrowers or to competition.
72
5531(a) and (c) and 5536(a)(1)(B).
COUNT IV
Ocwens Deceptive Foreclosure Communications
240. In numerous instances since 2014, in connection with servicing mortgage
loans, Ocwen misrepresented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that
borrowers had a certain amount of time, typically 30 days, to submit additional
information that Ocwen needed to complete and evaluate their loss mitigation
applications and that borrowers would not be foreclosed on while that request was
pending.
241. In truth and in fact, while Ocwens requests for additional information it
needed to complete and evaluate borrowers loss mitigation applications were pending,
Ocwen would foreclose on the borrowers.
242. The representations set forth in Paragraphs 240 were false or misleading
and were material to borrowers decisions relating to their mortgages.
243. Ocwens acts and practices as described in Paragraphs 240-241 constitute
deceptive acts and practices in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA. 12
U.S.C. 5531(a) and 5536(a)(1)(B).
COUNT V
Ocwens Unfair Billing and Processing of Payments for Add-On Products
245. In numerous instances since July 2011, in connection with Ocwens
servicing of a borrowers mortgage loan, Ocwen enrolled consumers in add-on products
73
without their consent and then billed, collected, and processed payments from these
consumers.
246. Ocwens actions caused or were likely to cause substantial injury to
borrowers that borrowers could not reasonably avoid themselves and that are not
outweighed by countervailing benefits to borrowers or to competition.
5531(a) and (c) and 5536(a)(1)(B).
COUNT VI
Ocwens Deceptive Marketing of Add-On Products
249. In numerous instances since July 2011, while marketing and soliciting
borrowers to enroll in add-on products in connection with its servicing of mortgage
loans, Ocwen has represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that the
borrower was receiving a cash voucher or a refund check.
250. In truth and in fact, Ocwen was soliciting the consumer to enroll in add-on
products. In numerous instances, Ocwen failed to disclose, or disclose adequately, the
material terms and conditions of the offer, including that in order to redeem the voucher
or check the borrower had to enroll in an add-on product, which included a monthly fee.
In numerous instances, Ocwen also failed to disclose or disclose adequately that in order
to redeem the voucher, borrowers had to remain enrolled in the add-on product for at
least a year and pay monthly fees, and that the borrowers would receive the value of the
voucher in quarterly installments.
74
251. The representations set forth in Paragraphs 249-250, and Ocwens failure
to disclose, or disclose adequately, the material terms and conditions of the offer,
constitute deceptive acts and practices in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the
CFPA. 12 U.S.C. 5531(a) and 5536(a)(1)(B).
VIOLATIONS OF THE TRUTH-IN-LENDING ACT
252. TILA and its implementing regulation, Regulation Z, at 12 C.F.R.
1026.36(c)(1), prohibit certain acts and practices and contain certain requirements
relating to payment processing in connection with a consumer credit transaction
secured by a consumers principal dwelling.
253. Consumer credit as defined by Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. 1026.2(a)(12)
means, credit offered or extended to a consumer primarily for personal, family, or
household purposes.
254. Credit as defined by Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. 1026.2(a)(14) means the
right to defer payment of debt or to incur debt and defer its payment.
255. A dwelling as defined by Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. 1026.2(a)(19), means
a residential structure that contains one to four units, whether or not that structure is
attached to real property. The term includes an individual condominium unit,
cooperative unit, mobile home, and trailer, if it is used as a residence.
256. Ocwen is the servicer of consumer credit secured by consumers principal
dwellings where it services mortgages that have been extended to consumers primarily
for personal, family, or household purposes and secure consumers principal residential
structures that contains one to four units.
75
COUNT VII
Ocwens Failure to Timely and Appropriately Credit Payments
258. As of January 10, 2014, Regulation Z generally requires Ocwen, when it
receives a full periodic payment, to credit the payment as of the date of receipt unless
the failure to do so does not result in a charge to the borrower or negative reporting. 12
C.F.R. 1026.36(c)(1)(i). If Ocwen retains a partial payment, or a payment less than the
full periodic payment, which it holds in a suspense or unapplied funds account, Ocwen
must also, after an accumulation of sufficient funds to cover a periodic payment, treat
such funds as a periodic payment. 12 C.F.R. 1026.36(c)(1)(ii).
259. Further, under Regulation Z, Ocwen must, subject to certain exceptions,
provide borrowers with a monthly periodic statement or billing statement detailing
information such as the amount due, how Ocwen will break down and apply monthly
payments, all payments received since the last statement, the total of all payments
received since the beginning of the current calendar year, all transaction activity since
the last statement, and the amount of payments in a suspense or unapplied funds
account. 12 C.F.R. 1026.41(d).
260. In numerous instances since January 10, 2014, Ocwen has failed to timely
and appropriately credit full periodic payments made by borrowers as of the date of
receipt.
261. In numerous instances since January 10, 2014, Ocwen has failed to timely
and appropriately credit borrowers payments it is holding in suspense accounts, where
Ocwen, after an accumulation of sufficient funds to cover a periodic payment in
76
borrowers suspense accounts, has failed to treat such funds as a periodic payment as of
the date of receipt.
262. In numerous instances since January 10, 2014, Ocwen has failed to send
borrowers periodic statements accurately detailing information such as the amount due,
how Ocwen will break down and apply monthly payments, all payments received since
the last statement, the total of all payments received since the beginning of the current
calendar year, all transaction activity since the last statement, and the amount of
payments in a suspense or unapplied funds account.
263. The acts and practices described in Paragraphs 260-262 constitute
violations of 12 C.F.R. 1026.36(c)(1)(i) and (ii), 1026.41(d), and 1036(a)(1)(A) of the
CFPA, 12 U.S.C 5536(a)(1)(A).
VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT
264. Section 808 of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692f, prohibits debt collectors,
such as Ocwen, from engaging in unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt
to collect any debt.
265. Section 807 of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692e, prohibits debt collectors,
such as Ocwen, from using any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means
in connection with the collection of any debt. Section 807(2) prohibits the false
representation of the character, amount, or legal status of the debt. Section 807(10)
prohibits debt collectors from using any false representation or deceptive means to
collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer.
266. The term consumer as defined in Section 803(3) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C.
1692a(3), means any natural person obligated or allegedly obligated to pay any debt.
77
267. The term debt as defined in Section 803(5) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C.
1692a(5), means any obligation or alleged obligation of a consumer to pay money
arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance or services which
are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household
purposes, whether or not such obligation has been reduced to judgment.
268. The term debt collector as defined by Section 803(6) of the FDCPA, 15
U.S.C. 1692a(6) means, in relevant part, any person who uses any instrumentality of
interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the
collection of any debts or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or
indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another. It does not include
a person collecting debts owed to another to the extent the debts were not in default at
the time that the person obtained them. 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6)(F)(iii).
269. Ocwen acquires servicing rights to some mortgages that are in default at
the time of transfer and proceeds to collect on those mortgages. With respect to those
debts, Ocwen is a debt collector as defined by the FDCPA because it regularly collects or
attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or
due another and its collection activities are covered by the FDCPA.
COUNT VIII
Ocwens Use of Inaccurate and Incomplete Information to
Service Loans is Unfair
271. In numerous instances since January 2014, Ocwen has used inaccurate
and incomplete information, including incorrect data and incomplete or missing
documentation, to service borrowers loans that were in default when Ocwen acquired
78
the rights to service such loans. This inaccurate and incomplete information relates to
borrowers:
a. Loan terms, including interest rate(s), balloon payments, principals,
including deferred principals, and maturity dates;
b. Amounts received from and owed by borrowers, including monthly
payments and the date Ocwen received the payments, unpaid fees,
payoff amounts, and reinstatement amounts;
c. Escrow amounts, including borrowers escrow balances, disbursements
made on behalf of borrowers, escrow surpluses, and escrow shortages;
d. Insurance coverage, disbursements, and amounts due, including
premiums Ocwen charged to borrowers for hazard insurance, flood
insurance, and purchase mortgage insurance; and
e. Loss mitigation and foreclosure information, including information
required of borrowers to complete loss mitigation applications, terms
of loan modification agreements, and the dates of pending foreclosure
sales.
272. Ocwens use of inaccurate or incomplete information to service loans
causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers, such as the unlawful
commencement of foreclosures, unlawful foreclosure sales, improper handling of loss
mitigation applications, misapplication of borrowers payments, collection and billing of
inaccurate and incorrect amounts, imposition of inappropriate late and other fees and
charges, inaccurate delinquency statuses, inaccurate negative credit reporting, and/or
emotional distress.
79
273. These injuries cannot be reasonably avoided by consumers, who do not
choose their mortgage servicer, and are not outweighed by countervailing benefits to
consumers or competition.
acts and practices in violation of Section 808 of the FDCPA. 15 U.S.C. 1692f, and
1036(a)(1)(A) of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C 5536(a)(1)(A).
COUNT IX
Ocwens Deceptive Debt Collection Practices
276. In numerous instances since January 2014, Ocwen has represented to
borrowers whose loans Ocwen acquired the servicing rights to when the loan was in
default, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, in communications with
borrowers, that their loans have certain unpaid balances; monthly payments;
delinquency statuses; unpaid fees; reinstatement amounts; escrow amounts due; payoff
amounts due; insurance amounts due; and other amounts due.
277. In truth and fact, in numerous instances the material representations set
forth in the above-referenced Paragraph 276 were false or misleading, or were not
substantiated at the time the representations were made, including but not limited to
representations made where Ocwen had knowledge or reason to believe that:
a. The prior servicer data and records upon which it was relying were
inaccurate or missing but it had failed to obtain or review information
substantiating the accuracy of the data prior to collecting or foreclosing
on borrowers loans;
80
b. Its system of record contained inaccurate information due to system
errors and limitations, manual entry errors, and incorrect information
provided by service providers but it had failed to obtain or review
information substantiating the accuracy of the data prior to collecting
or foreclosing on borrowers loans; and
c. Consumers had disputed, challenged, or questioned the validity or
accuracy of Ocwens information but it had failed to obtain or review
information substantiating the accuracy of the information, or failed to
consider the consumers disputes, prior to collecting or foreclosing on
borrowers loans.
violations of Sections 807(2) and (10) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692e(2)(A) and
1692e(10) , and 1036(a)(1)(A) of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C 5536(a)(1)(A).
VIOLATIONS OF THE REAL SETTLEMENT PROCEDURES ACT
279. RESPA and its implementing regulation, Regulation X, apply to federally
related mortgage loans, including the servicing of those loans, the administration of
their escrow accounts, error resolution procedures, force-placed insurance, general
servicing policies and procedures, and loss mitigation procedures.
280. RESPA and Regulation X apply to the conduct of servicers. Regulation X
defines a servicer as a person responsible for servicing of a federally related mortgage
loan. Under Regulation X, servicing means receiving any scheduled periodic
payments from a borrower pursuant to the terms of any federally related mortgage loan
. . . and making the payments to the owner of the loan or other third parties of principal
and interest and such other payments with respect to the amounts received from the
81
borrower as may be required pursuant to the terms of the mortgage servicing loan
documents or servicing contract.
281. Ocwen is a servicer under RESPA and Regulation X because it receives
payments from borrowers pursuant to the terms of federally related mortgage loans and
is responsible for, among other things, distributing the payments to investors who own
the borrowers loans and, when borrowers loans include escrow accounts, to the
borrowers taxing authorities or insurance companies.
COUNT X
Ocwens Escrow Violations
283. As of January 10, 2014, Section 6(g) of RESPA, 12 U.S.C. 2605(g) states
that [i]f the terms of any federally related mortgage loan require the borrower to make
payments to the servicer of the loan for deposit into an escrow account for the purpose
of assuring payment of taxes, insurance premiums, and other charges with respect to the
property, the servicer shall make payments from the escrow account for such taxes,
insurance premiums, and other charges in a timely manner as such payments become
due.
284. The requirements of Section 6(g) are further explained in Regulation X, 12
C.F.R. 1024.17(k) and 34(a), which states [i]f the terms of any federally related
mortgage loan require the consumer to make payments to an escrow account, the
servicer must pay the disbursements in a timely manner, that is, on or before the
deadline to avoid a penalty.
82
285. In numerous instances since January 10, 2014, Ocwen has failed to pay
borrowers hazard insurance premiums in a timely manner as the payments became
due.
286. Section 1024.17 of Regulation X requires Ocwen to:
a. Conduct annual escrow analyses for borrowers, 12 C.F.R.
1024.17(c)(3) and (f)(1);
b. Provide borrowers with annual escrow statements within 30 days of
the completion of the escrow account computation year, 12 C.F.R.
1024.17(i); and
c. Only collect escrow shortages when a shortage, in fact, exists, 12 C.F.R.
1024.17(f)(3).
287. In numerous instances since January 10, 2014, Ocwen has:
a. Failed to timely conduct annual escrow analyses for borrowers and, in
some instances, failed to conduct the escrow analyses altogether;
b. Failed to provide borrowers with escrow statements within 30 days of
the completion of the escrow account computation year and, in some
instances, failed to provide the escrow statements at all; and
c. Collected escrow shortages that did not exist because it failed to timely
process borrowers escrow shortage payments.
288. The acts and practices described in Paragraphs 285 and 287 constitute
violations of Section 6(g) of RESPA and Regulation X, 12 C.F.R. 1024.17(k),
1024.17(c)(3), 1024.17(i), 1024.17(f)(1) and (3), and 1024.34(a) , and 1036(a)(1)(A) of
the CFPA, 12 U.S.C 5536(a)(1)(A).
83
COUNT XI
Ocwens Notice of Error Violations
290. As of January 10, 2014, Section 6(e)(2) and (k)(1)(c) of RESPA, 12 U.S.C.
2605(e)(2) and (k)(1)(c), requires Ocwen to conduct an investigation of a qualified
written request and make appropriate corrections to a consumers account. Regulation
X further explains that a qualified written request that asserts an error relating to the
servicing of a mortgage loan is a notice of error (NOE) and that a servicer generally
must either: (1) correct the error or errors identified by the borrower and provide the
borrower with a written notification regarding the correction; or (2) conduct a
reasonable investigation of an alleged error and provide the borrower with a written
notification that indicates that the servicer has determined no error occurred and
provides additional required information. 12 C.F.R. 1024.35(a) and (e)(1).
291. In numerous instances since January 10, 2014, Ocwen has failed to make
appropriate corrections relating to NOEs when it finds errors in borrowers accounts,
and has failed to conduct reasonable investigations of NOEs.
292. The acts and practices described in Paragraph 291 constitute violations of
Section 6(e)(2) and (k)(1)(c) of RESPA, 12 U.S.C. 2605(e)(2) and (k)(1)(c), and
Regulation X, 12 C.F.R. 1024.35(a) and 1024.35(e)(1) , and 1036(a)(1)(A) of the
CFPA, 12 U.S.C 5536(a)(1)(A).
COUNT XII
Ocwens Servicing Policies and Procedures Violations
294. As of January 10, 2014, pursuant to Regulation X, which was promulgated
under Section 19(a) of RESPA, 12 U.S.C. 2617(a), Ocwen must maintain policies and
84
procedures reasonably designed to ensure that it achieves the objectives set forth in 12
C.F.R. 1024.38(b). 12 C.F.R. 1024.38(a). These objectives include:
a. Providing accurate and timely disclosures to a borrower as required by
[Subpart C of Regulation X] or other applicable law, 12 C.F.R.
1024.38(b)(1)(i);
b. Investigating, responding to, and, as appropriate, making corrections
in response to complaints asserted by a borrower, 12 C.F.R.
1024.38(b)(1)(ii);
c. Upon notification of the death of a borrower, promptly identifying and
facilitating communication with the successor in interest of the
deceased borrower with respect to the property secured by the
deceased borrowers mortgage loan, 12 C.F.R. 1024.38(b)(1)(vi);
d. Providing Ocwens personnel with access to accurate and current
documents and information reflecting actions performed by service
providers, 12 C.F.R. 1024.38(b)(3)(i); and
e. Timely transferring all information and documents in Ocwens
possession or control relating to the transferred mortgage loans to a
transferee or new servicer in a form and manner that ensures the
accuracy of the information and documents transferred and enables
the new servicer to comply with the new servicers obligations to the
owner or assignee of the mortgage loan and applicable law, 12 C.F.R.
1024.38(b)(4)(i).
295. In numerous instances since January 10, 2014, Ocwen has:
85
a. Failed to maintain policies and procedures reasonably designed to
ensure that it sends borrowers accurate and timely escrow statements
and periodic statements;
b. Failed to maintain policies and procedures reasonably designed to
ensure that it is investigating, responding to, and, as appropriate,
making corrections in response to complaints asserted by a borrower;
c. Failed to maintain policies and procedures reasonably designed to
ensure that upon notification of the death of a borrower it promptly
identifies and facilitates communication with successors, as evidenced
by its failure to:
i. Promptly identify successors, which, in turn, impacted
successors assumption of the deceased borrowers loan and
ability to obtain loss mitigation assistance; and
ii. Communicate to potential and actual successors Ocwens
requirements to confirm a person as a successor and obtain
loss mitigation assistance;
d. Failed to maintain policies and procedures reasonably designed to
provide appropriate Ocwen personnel with access to accurate and
current documents and information reflecting actions performed by
Ocwens foreclosure attorneys; and/or
e. Failed to maintain policies and procedures reasonably designed to
ensure that it could transfer all information and documents in a form
and manner that ensures new servicers have complete and accurate
86
information and are able to comply with applicable laws by failing,
prior to a transfer, to:
i. Transfer information in a form and manner that ensures new
servicers have accurate borrower records and are able to
comply with applicable laws; and
ii. Disclose to new servicers known errors or failures that
impact or likely impact the accuracy of transferred borrower
records and a new servicers ability to comply with applicable
laws.
Sections 19(a) of RESPA, 12 U.S.C. 2617(a) and Regulation X, 12 C.F.R. 1024.38(a),
12 C.F.R. 1024.38(b)(1)(i), (ii), and (vi), 1024.38(b)(3)(i), and 1024.38(b)(4)(i), and
COUNT XIII
Ocwens Foreclosure Violations
298. As of January 10, 2014, Regulation X, which the Bureau promulgated
pursuant to Sections 6(j)(3), 6(k)(1)(C), 6(k)(1)(E) and 19(a) of RESPA, 12 U.S.C.
2605(j)(3), (k)(1)(C), and (k)(1)(E), and 12 U.S.C. 2617(a), provides borrowers with a
variety of protections during their loss mitigation application and foreclosure processes.
299. Under Regulation X, if a servicer receives a loss mitigation application,
which is an oral or written request for a loss mitigation option that is accompanied by
any information required by a servicer for evaluation for a loss mitigation option (Loss
87
Mitigation Application), from borrowers whose mortgage is secured by their principal
residence, certain protections are triggered.
300. Under Regulation X, if a servicer receives a Loss Mitigation Application 45
days or more before a foreclosure sale, it must send the borrower an acknowledgement
letter within five days that indicates if the application is complete and, if it is not, states
the additional documents and information that the borrower must submit to complete
the application (Acknowledgment Letter). A Loss Mitigation Application is complete
under Regulation X when the servicer has received all of the information it requires
from a borrower to evaluate the borrowers application for all available loss mitigation
options (Complete Application). An application is facially complete under Regulation
X if a borrower provides the information and documentation that the servicer requests
in the Acknowledgment Letter or if no additional information is requested in the
Acknowledgment Letter (Facially Complete Application).
301. Regulation X also requires that, if a servicer receives a Complete
Application more than 37 days before a foreclosure sale, it must evaluate the borrower
for all available loss mitigation options and provide the borrower with a written notice
within 30 days indicating, among other things, whether it will offer the borrower any
loss mitigation options.
302. Regulation X also generally prohibits servicers from, among other things,
commencing a first notice of filing of a foreclosure (First Filing), obtaining a
foreclosure judgment, or conducting a foreclosure sale if: (1) the servicer discovers that
additional information or corrections to a previously submitted document are required
to complete a Facially Complete Application and the borrower has not had a reasonable
opportunity to complete the application; (2) the servicer has timely received a Complete
88
Application but has not yet evaluated the application; (3) the time for the borrower to
respond to a loss mitigation offer or to appeal a loan modification denial has not
expired; or (4) the borrower is performing upon a loss mitigation agreement (e.g., a trial
loan modification or short-term payment forbearance program).
303. On or after January 10, 2014, Ocwen received Loss Mitigation Applications
from borrowers whose mortgages are secured by their principal residences.
304. On or after January 10, 2014, Ocwen received Complete Applications from
borrowers whose mortgages are secured by their principal residences.
305. On or after January 10, 2014, Ocwen received Facially Complete
Applications from borrowers whose mortgages are secured by their principal residences.
306. In numerous instances, Ocwen has made First Filings even though Ocwen
was still evaluating borrowers Complete Applications that it had received on or after
January 10, 2014 and more than 37 days before a foreclosure sale.
307. In numerous instances, Ocwen has obtained foreclosure judgments and/or
conducted foreclosure sales upon the homes of borrowers from whom it received a
Complete Application or Facially Complete Application on or after January 10, 2014 and
more than 37 days before a foreclosure sale, and who: (1) were waiting for Ocwen to
evaluate their Complete Application; (2) still had time to accept a loss mitigation offer;
(3) were performing upon a loss mitigation agreement; or (4) had not been provided
with a reasonable opportunity to provide Ocwen with missing information or corrected
information required to complete a Facially Complete Application.
violations of Sections 6(j)(3), 6(k)(1)(C), 6(k)(1)(E) and 19(a) of RESPA, 12 U.S.C.
2605(j)(3), (k)(1)(C), and (k)(1)(E), and 12 U.S.C. 2617(a), and Regulation X, 12 C.F.R.
89
1024.41(b)(2)(i)(B), 1024.41(c)(1)(i) and (ii), 1024.41(f)(2), and 1024.41(g) , and
VIOLATIONS OF THE HOMEOWNERS PROTECTION ACT
309. Under the Homeowners Protection Act (HPA), servicers are required,
under certain conditions, to automatically terminate a mortgagees requirement to pay
private mortgage insurance on a certain date called the termination date. 12 U.S.C.
4902(b).
310. A servicer as defined by the HPA, 12 U.S.C. 4901(16), means a servicer
as defined in RESPA, 12 U.S.C. 2605(i)(2). As referenced in Paragraphs 13, 16, and 17,
Ocwen is a servicer.
311. A mortgagor as defined by the HPA, 12 U.S.C. 4901(11), means the
original borrower under a residential mortgage or his or her successors or assignees.
312. A residential mortgage as defined by the HPA, 12 U.S.C. 4901(14),
means a mortgage loan, or other evidence of a security interest with respect to a single-
family dwelling that is the principal residence of the mortgagor.
313. Private mortgage insurance as defined by the HPA, 12 U.S.C. 4901(10),
means mortgage insurance other than mortgage insurance made available under the
National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. 1701, title 38, or title V of the Housing Act of 1949, 42
U.S.C. 1471 et seq.
314. The termination date as defined by the HPA, 12 U.S.C. 4901(18),
means the date when:
a. With respect to a fixed rate mortgage, the date on which the
principal balance of the mortgage, based solely on the initial
amortization schedule for that mortgage, and irrespective of the
90
outstanding balance for that mortgage on that date, is first scheduled
to reach 78 percent of the original value of the property securing the
loan; and
b. With respect to an adjustable rate mortgage, the date on which the
principal balance of the mortgage, based solely on the amortization
schedule then in effect for that mortgage, and irrespective of the
outstanding balance for that mortgage on that date, is first scheduled
to reach 78 percent of the original value of the property securing the
loan.
COUNT XIV
Ocwens Violations of the HPA
316. Ocwen is the servicer for mortgagors or the original borrowers under a
residential mortgage with respect to single-family dwellings that are their principal
residences.
317. In numerous instances since January 2014, Ocwen has failed to
automatically terminate private mortgage insurance for borrowers who were current or
became current on their mortgage as of their termination date.
Section 4901(b) of the HPA, 12 U.S.C. 4901(b) , and 1036(a)(1)(A) of the CFPA, 12
U.S.C 5536(a)(1)(A).
Prayer for Relief
Wherefore, the Bureau, pursuant to Sections 1054 and 1055 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C.
5564 and 5565, and the Courts own equitable powers, requests that the Court:
91
1. Permanently enjoin Defendants from committing future violations of the CFPA,
FDCPA, RESPA, TILA, and HPA, and enter such other injunctive relief as
appropriate, including ordering that, if any Defendant is found to be in material
non-compliance with any injunction entered by the Court, the Defendant must
claw back any non-salary bonuses or other compensation it has paid, or stock
option it has granted, to any officer or director of the Defendant in connection
with the time period during which the Defendant was not in compliance;
2. Award such relief as the Court finds necessary to redress injury to consumers,
including, but not limited to, rescission or reform of contracts; refund of moneys;
restitution; and payment of damages or other monetary relief;
3. Award such relief as the Court finds necessary to disgorge the Defendants of
unlawful gains;
4. Impose civil money penalties against the Defendants;
5. Order the Defendants to pay costs and fees incurred in prosecuting this action;
and
6. Award additional relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
92
Dated: April 20, 2017

Respectfully submitted,
Attorneys for Plaintiff

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
ANTHONY ALEXIS
Enforcement Director
CARA PETERSEN
Deputy Enforcement Director
For Litigation
GABRIEL OMALLEY
Assistant Litigation Deputy
/s/ Jean Healey_______

Jean Healey
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: 202-435-7514
Facsimile: (202) 435-7722
1700 G Street NW
Washington, DC 20552
Jan Singelmann
Phone: 202-435-9670
Facsimile: (202) 435-7722
1700 G Street NW
Atur Desai
Phone: 202-435-7978
Facsimile: (202) 435-7722
1700 G Street NW
93

2017 CFPB Ocwen-Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2017 CFPB Ocwen-Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2017 CFPB Ocwen-Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the case about?

What is the case about?

What laws is Ocwen accused of violating?

What laws is Ocwen accused of violating?

Case 9:17-cv-80495-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2017 Page 1 of 93

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 9:17-CV-80495

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU,

OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION,

OCWEN MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC.,

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC,

1. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) brings this action

specializes in servicing the loans of distressed borrowers. It committed numerous

investigate and make corrections in response to consumer complaints. Ocwen has

loan servicing rights to servicers without fully disclosing or correcting errors in

borrowers loan files.

the Homeowners Protection Act of 1998, 12 U.S.C. 4902(b) (the HPA).

3. The Bureau brings this action to obtain permanent injunctive relief,

for the Defendants violations of Federal consumer financial law.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action because it is

5. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and 12 U.S.C.

events giving rise to the claims took place in this district.

6. The Bureau is an independent agency of the United States created by the

financial laws. 12 U.S.C. 5563, 5564.

7. The CFPA is a Federal consumer financial law. 12 U.S.C. 5481(14). Under

engage in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. 12 U.S.C. 5531(a),

person to offer or provide to a consumer any financial product or service not in

omission in violation of a Federal consumer financial law. 12 U.S.C 5536(a)(1)(A).

1036 of the CFPA. 12 U.S.C 5536(a)(1)(A).

9. The Bureau is authorized to commence civil actions in federal district

including violations of the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. 5564(a) and (b).

10. Ocwen Financial Corporation (OFC) is a publicly-traded Florida

throughout the United States.

and throughout the United States.

12. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (OLS) is a Delaware limited liability

throughout the United States.

among other things, processing borrower payments, administering loss mitigation

borrowers mortgage debts that are in default.

with OFCs public disclosures.

15. OFC controls, directs, operates, and participates in mortgage servicing

which include OMS and OLS.

Department of Financial Institutions, that OMS engages in the servicing or subservicing

to Ocwen borrowers accounts.

Complaint, covered persons, as that term is defined by 12 U.S.C. 5481(6)(A), because

primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, or that is delivered, offered, or

collecting on consumers mortgage debts; and marketing and processing and

(add-on products). 12 U.S.C. 5481(15)(A)(i), (iv), (vii), (viii), and (x).

stock and is thus a controlling shareholder and a shareholderor other personwho

purposes of any provision of Federal consumer financial law. 12 U.S.C. 5481(25)(B).

for add-on products. 12 U.S.C. 5481(26)(A)(i).

liable for the actions of their agent, OLS.

Ocwens Chief Executive Officer.

balance of approximate $183.1 billion. As of December 31, 2016, Ocwen serviced

approximately 1,393,766 loans with an aggregate unpaid principal balance of

whether and how Ocwen services their loans.

B. Ocwens REALServicing System of Record.

27. Fundamental functions of a mortgage servicer include processing and

applying borrower payments, communicating accurate payment information to