2007-07-07 letter to AMC - Revision history

Woozle: updated categories

2009-06-07T12:35:50Z

updated categories

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:35, 7 June 2009
Line 2:		Line 2:
	[[2007-07-07 letter to AMC]] .. ([[:Image:2007-07-25 AMC letter showing numbers.7clr.png\|2007-07-25 from AMC]]) .. [[2007-08-09 reply to AMC]]		[[2007-07-07 letter to AMC]] .. ([[:Image:2007-07-25 AMC letter showing numbers.7clr.png\|2007-07-25 from AMC]]) .. [[2007-08-09 reply to AMC]]
	==Letter==		==Letter==
	[[category:dated ~~items~~]][[category:business ~~correspondence~~]][[category:~~Dispute Correspondence~~]]		[[category:dated]][[category:letters/business]][[category:letters/dispute]]
	:'''Date''': 2007-07-07		:'''Date''': 2007-07-07
	:'''To''': [[htyp:AMC Mortgage Services\|AMC Mortgage Services]]		:'''To''': [[htyp:AMC Mortgage Services\|AMC Mortgage Services]]

Woozle: navbar

2007-09-18T22:42:35Z

navbar

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:42, 18 September 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[category:~~Dated Items~~]][[category:business correspondence]][[category:Dispute Correspondence]]		==Navigation==
			[[2007-07-07 letter to AMC]] .. ([[:Image:2007-07-25 AMC letter showing numbers.7clr.png\|2007-07-25 from AMC]]) .. [[2007-08-09 reply to AMC]]
			==Letter==
			[[category:dated items]][[category:business correspondence]][[category:Dispute Correspondence]]
	:'''Date''': 2007-07-07		:'''Date''': 2007-07-07
	:'''To''': [[htyp:AMC Mortgage Services\|AMC Mortgage Services]]		:'''To''': [[htyp:AMC Mortgage Services\|AMC Mortgage Services]]

Woozle: /* 2007-07-25 letter from AMC */ images

2007-08-09T20:50:36Z

2007-07-25 letter from AMC: images

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:50, 9 August 2007
Line 28:		Line 28:
	'''Big inconsistency''': The last statement I can find, dated 2007-05-08 and due 7/1, shows a "Principal Balance" of $78.341.55. AMC's online records show that the $78,860.53 was counted as an on-time payment for that statement. Going by this, AMC should owe us a little over $500. The discrepancy can't be due to any kind of early payoff penalty because we were told explicitly when we first got the mortgage that there were no such penalties (it remains to be seen if they managed to slip one into the contract anyway, so it would be our word against theirs that we were promised this).		'''Big inconsistency''': The last statement I can find, dated 2007-05-08 and due 7/1, shows a "Principal Balance" of $78.341.55. AMC's online records show that the $78,860.53 was counted as an on-time payment for that statement. Going by this, AMC should owe us a little over $500. The discrepancy can't be due to any kind of early payoff penalty because we were told explicitly when we first got the mortgage that there were no such penalties (it remains to be seen if they managed to slip one into the contract anyway, so it would be our word against theirs that we were promised this).
	===2007-07-25 letter from AMC===		===2007-07-25 letter from AMC===
	~~''need to upload image~~ of ~~this~~ letter''		This is the main part of the letter AMC sent (the only part showing any breakdown of numbers):

			[[Image:2007-07-25 AMC letter showing numbers.detail.7clr.png\|600px]]

			See [[:Image:2007-07-25 AMC letter showing numbers.7clr.png\|entire letter]] for full context

	See [[2007-08-09 reply to AMC]] for our reply		See [[2007-08-09 reply to AMC]] for our reply

Woozle: reply to AMC

2007-08-09T20:40:21Z

reply to AMC

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:40, 9 August 2007
Line 12:		Line 12:
	* [[:Image:2007-07-02 AMC online printout.web.png]]		* [[:Image:2007-07-02 AMC online printout.web.png]]
	* [[:Image:2007-06-27 AMC amount still due.web.png]]		* [[:Image:2007-06-27 AMC amount still due.web.png]]
	==Phone call 2007-07-17==		==Follow-Up==
			===Phone call 2007-07-17===
	AMC called repeatedly before and after this letter was sent, but never left a message until 2007-07-17 (see [[htyp:800-430-5262]]). I mentioned having sent this letter, but it was not until she put me on hold for about 5 minutes in order to look up the figures (how much was owed and how much had actually been paid off) that I had time to find it.		AMC called repeatedly before and after this letter was sent, but never left a message until 2007-07-17 (see [[htyp:800-430-5262]]). I mentioned having sent this letter, but it was not until she put me on hold for about 5 minutes in order to look up the figures (how much was owed and how much had actually been paid off) that I had time to find it.

Line 26:		Line 27:

	'''Big inconsistency''': The last statement I can find, dated 2007-05-08 and due 7/1, shows a "Principal Balance" of $78.341.55. AMC's online records show that the $78,860.53 was counted as an on-time payment for that statement. Going by this, AMC should owe us a little over $500. The discrepancy can't be due to any kind of early payoff penalty because we were told explicitly when we first got the mortgage that there were no such penalties (it remains to be seen if they managed to slip one into the contract anyway, so it would be our word against theirs that we were promised this).		'''Big inconsistency''': The last statement I can find, dated 2007-05-08 and due 7/1, shows a "Principal Balance" of $78.341.55. AMC's online records show that the $78,860.53 was counted as an on-time payment for that statement. Going by this, AMC should owe us a little over $500. The discrepancy can't be due to any kind of early payoff penalty because we were told explicitly when we first got the mortgage that there were no such penalties (it remains to be seen if they managed to slip one into the contract anyway, so it would be our word against theirs that we were promised this).
			===2007-07-25 letter from AMC===
			''need to upload image of this letter''

			See [[2007-08-09 reply to AMC]] for our reply

Woozle: /* Phone call 2007-07-17 */ found proper source for payoff figure

2007-07-17T15:52:36Z

Phone call 2007-07-17: found proper source for payoff figure

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:52, 17 July 2007
Line 16:		Line 16:

	When she came back off hold, she gave me the basic figures:		When she came back off hold, she gave me the basic figures:
	* '''$78,860.53''' was paid (matches ~~my notes~~)		* '''$78,860.53''' was paid (matches the figure in the documents from Mortgage Co. #2)
	* '''$78.931.26''' was due		* '''$78.931.26''' was due
	* '''$70.73''' unpaid balance still due (math agrees)		* '''$70.73''' unpaid balance still due (math agrees)

Woozle: /* Phone call 2007-07-17 */ more details, and the Big Inconsistency

2007-07-17T15:51:50Z

Phone call 2007-07-17: more details, and the Big Inconsistency

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:51, 17 July 2007
Line 21:		Line 21:
	At that point, I said we needed this accounting in writing, for our records. She said that Sandy would need to call and request this. I said that we had already sent in a written request, signed by Sandy (i.e. this letter), on July 7... at which point she admitted having received it on (I think) July 12, and that they would be sending out the requested accounting shortly.		At that point, I said we needed this accounting in writing, for our records. She said that Sandy would need to call and request this. I said that we had already sent in a written request, signed by Sandy (i.e. this letter), on July 7... at which point she admitted having received it on (I think) July 12, and that they would be sending out the requested accounting shortly.

	Remaining ~~questions~~: will they explain the math behind the "due" figure, or just assume that we will take their word for it? ''Should'' we take their word for it? How would we go about trying to calculate what the amount due should have been? Do we even have enough information to do so? (Tentatively: yes) How could the amount due have changed by only $70.73, from the point when the new mortgage company got the total to the point when they paid it?		She also said that they went ahead and "paid it off for you" because it was "less than $100", in order to avoid our incurring any additional interest fees on the $70.73; this is something they normally do, according to her.

			Remaining unknowns: will they explain the math behind the "due" figure, or just assume that we will take their word for it? ''Should'' we take their word for it? How would we go about trying to calculate what the amount due should have been? Do we even have enough information to do so? (Tentatively: yes, expecially if you start from AMC's final statement -- see below) How could the amount due have changed by only $70.73, from the point when the new mortgage company got the total to the point when they paid it?

			'''Big inconsistency''': The last statement I can find, dated 2007-05-08 and due 7/1, shows a "Principal Balance" of $78.341.55. AMC's online records show that the $78,860.53 was counted as an on-time payment for that statement. Going by this, AMC should owe us a little over $500. The discrepancy can't be due to any kind of early payoff penalty because we were told explicitly when we first got the mortgage that there were no such penalties (it remains to be seen if they managed to slip one into the contract anyway, so it would be our word against theirs that we were promised this).

Woozle: /* Attachments */ phone call

2007-07-17T15:20:14Z

Attachments: phone call

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:20, 17 July 2007
Line 12:		Line 12:
	* [[:Image:2007-07-02 AMC online printout.web.png]]		* [[:Image:2007-07-02 AMC online printout.web.png]]
	* [[:Image:2007-06-27 AMC amount still due.web.png]]		* [[:Image:2007-06-27 AMC amount still due.web.png]]
			==Phone call 2007-07-17==
			AMC called repeatedly before and after this letter was sent, but never left a message until 2007-07-17 (see [[htyp:800-430-5262]]). I mentioned having sent this letter, but it was not until she put me on hold for about 5 minutes in order to look up the figures (how much was owed and how much had actually been paid off) that I had time to find it.

			When she came back off hold, she gave me the basic figures:
			* '''$78,860.53''' was paid (matches my notes)
			* '''$78.931.26''' was due
			* '''$70.73''' unpaid balance still due (math agrees)
			At that point, I said we needed this accounting in writing, for our records. She said that Sandy would need to call and request this. I said that we had already sent in a written request, signed by Sandy (i.e. this letter), on July 7... at which point she admitted having received it on (I think) July 12, and that they would be sending out the requested accounting shortly.

			Remaining questions: will they explain the math behind the "due" figure, or just assume that we will take their word for it? ''Should'' we take their word for it? How would we go about trying to calculate what the amount due should have been? Do we even have enough information to do so? (Tentatively: yes) How could the amount due have changed by only $70.73, from the point when the new mortgage company got the total to the point when they paid it?

Woozle: attachments; "dispute correspondence"

2007-07-07T15:41:41Z

attachments; "dispute correspondence"

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:41, 7 July 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[category:Dated Items]][[category:business correspondence]]		[[category:Dated Items]][[category:business correspondence]][[category:Dispute Correspondence]]
	:'''Date''': 2007-07-07		:'''Date''': 2007-07-07
	:'''To''': [[htyp:AMC Mortgage Services\|AMC Mortgage Services]]		:'''To''': [[htyp:AMC Mortgage Services\|AMC Mortgage Services]]
Line 9:		Line 9:

	Thank you,		Thank you,
			==Attachments==
			* [[:Image:2007-07-02 AMC online printout.web.png]]
			* [[:Image:2007-06-27 AMC amount still due.web.png]]

Woozle: date (to match letter as sent); categories

2007-07-07T15:21:56Z

date (to match letter as sent); categories

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:21, 7 July 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
			[[category:Dated Items]][[category:business correspondence]]
			:'''Date''': 2007-07-07
	:'''To''': [[htyp:AMC Mortgage Services\|AMC Mortgage Services]]		:'''To''': [[htyp:AMC Mortgage Services\|AMC Mortgage Services]]
	:'''Re''': Your letter of 2007-06-27 (copy enclosed)		:'''Re''': Your letter of 2007-06-27 (copy enclosed)

Woozle: online printout enclosed

2007-07-07T15:18:56Z

online printout enclosed

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:18, 7 July 2007
Line 2:		Line 2:
	:'''Re''': Your letter of 2007-06-27 (copy enclosed)		:'''Re''': Your letter of 2007-06-27 (copy enclosed)

	I should very much like to see an accounting of how you arrived at the figure of $70.73 still due on loan 0101231264. The online accounting ~~shows~~ an "escrow balance" of $0.00, and I believe this to be the correct balance.		I should very much like to see an accounting of how you arrived at the figure of $70.73 still due on loan 0101231264. The online accounting (also included) showed an "escrow balance" of $0.00 on 7/2, and I believe this to be the correct balance.

	For legal purposes: '''This letter is in dispute of the debt which you claim I owe.'''		For legal purposes: '''This letter is in dispute of the debt which you claim I owe.'''

	Thank you,		Thank you,