The Brevity Group

Totally agree. They took my money and it is a tactic of good cop bad cop. They are full of bs.

Mr. H.

engaged with our firm to conduct discovery, research, consult and ultimately draft and compose content in order to assist him in a dispute with his mortgage lender. Mr. H. entered into an agreement with our firm that was signed and notarized and returned to us along with payment for services in the amount of $2000.

Upon receipt of payment our team immediately went to work on his behalf conducting discovery and research due to the fact that the notes indicated that there was an upcoming sale date. Our team tried repeatedly to schedule a conference call with Mr. H. in order to move the process forward and after repeated voicemails and emails were able to schedule a lender conference call with Mr.

H. on the line several days later. During this initial conversation Mr. H.

indicated that he had hired a SECOND firm to help him with this matter but did not know if they would help him or get the job done. The client decided he wanted to continue moving forward with us and we conducted the conference call. On this call we were able to determine the exact date of his loan origination, the type of loan, the current interest rate, the note maturity date, the exact principal balance owed (down to the penny) as well as a breakdown of current principal and interest payment and most importantly the exact amount in arrearages. We obtained information on the foreclosure law firm handling his case as well as information on the investor and the dedicated single point of contact at his lender as we laid the groundwork to structure his case.

We also verified that there was an upcoming sale date and that time was of the essence. After this call was completed, we had a clear picture of where he stood with his lender and scheduled the intake interview for later in the week. In the interim the assigned Case Analyst who was to conduct the interview researched the history of his loan as well as the guidelines for his particular investor in preparation for the upcoming phone interview. Due to the fact that the sale date was fast approaching we referred Mr.

H. to a third party paralegal in order to assist him with a pro se bankruptcy filing if there were no other options for the sale date to be postponed. We continued to check in on the status of the upcoming sale date and it was postponed. We asked the client if he wanted to continue services and he stated that he did and the intake interview was rescheduled again for the following week.

The following week Mr. H. missed the scheduled time for the intake interview and multiple voicemails were left so we could reschedule. Approximately one week later, the client stated that he believed he had a modification offer and wanted to put services on hold.

We offered to review the modification offer if and when it was received and left the door open for Mr. H. One week later Mr. H.

received a trial modification offer that had been facilitated by the second company that he had hired simultaneously along with our company to help him. A few days later Mr. H. requested a refund for the $2000 he paid for services.

When Mr. Heintz filled out the BBB complaint, he erroneously claimed that he had paid our company $4600 for services which is a false claim. We are extremely pleased that Mr. Heintz received a modification and saved his home and that is a fantastic outcome.

This does not change the fact that he entered into an agreement with our company and initiated services and requested that we continue services, even though he knew he had hired a second company to help him at the same time. The client's failure to proceed after initiated services is considered an abandoned order per our agreement. Mr. H.

acknowledged that we are out of pocket for time and money for services rendered, research conducted, and time spent on the case. He signed an agreement with us to proceed with services, and then after we began performing said services informed us that he no longer wanted our services. We understand why, receiving a modification to save the home is a great outcome and it makes total sense why he would not want to continue services. However, that does not change the fact that we had initiated services and begun working on his case.

Our records indicate that Mr. H. paid out $2000 for services, but failed to make good on his agreement to pay the notary the $160 fee that came to him to execute the agreement . Taking all of that into consideration, we are willing to issue a refund in the amount of $325 subject to the execution of a standard release form.

As a final note, our services involve discovery, research, consulting, composing and drafting content in order to assist consumers in their disputes. These services are not subject to the MARS rule and these services do not fit into the category of loan modification. We hope that we have satisfactorily resolved this matter. Mr.

H.

never completed the paperwork that would allow him to receive the refund. We also submitted this information to the BBB who has closed the case