Quote: Alina said:I sent a similar letter to the servicer 3 years ago. I doctored it up quite a bit before sending it. I also did not include the last 3 pages which reference a quiet title action. I could not find any case law that held that was proper.
I filed a federal lawsuit against the servicer among others. The servicer tried to get the RESPA claims dismissed against it on 3 separate occasions. The judge ruled in my favor on each occasion by stating that it was a proper QWR under RESPA.
btw, I sent 3 QWRs. After the servicer failed to respond to the first one within the allotted time frame, I sent a second QWR. When it failed to respond to the second one, I sent a third. Shortly after I sent the third, the federal judge denied the servicer's first motion to dismiss. The servicer then sent a response. However, the response was woefully inadequate. The servicer only attached a copy of the mortgage and note.
I have every confidence that your edits much improved the QWR!
But even excluding the 3 pages on quiet title, this is WAY TOO LONG. The key thing is to hit the critical elements to make the QWR valid under the statute and then to make some rather specific requests while taking great care NOT to actually give the servicer any evidence that they can use against you!
That is, you need to be thinking three moves ahead!
The first move is the servicers' response, the utility and purpose of the questions presented and WHAT YOU ARE REALLY HOPING TO FIND OUT.
The second move is how the QWR will be perceived by the court when the court is considering specific RESPA counterclaims in a foreclosure action, particularly in respect of a motion to dismiss.
The third move is the possible evidentiary value to the servicer of the QWR letter and the possible evidentiary value to the borrower of the response.
One should begin with an end in mind. And one should proceed with caution!
If there is a LOT of information you desire to seek, use several separate QWRs. Failure to repsond to each would then seem to be a separate RESPA violation. And each is more likely to be perceived as reasonable and not unduly burdensome or onerous.