|
3075348
|
2018-11-15
|
Struggling to pay mortgage
|
Mortgage
|
|
| Issue |
Struggling to pay mortgage
|
| Timely |
Yes
|
| Company |
PRIMELENDING, A PLAINSCAPITAL COMPANY
|
| Product |
Mortgage
|
| Sub Product |
FHA mortgage
|
| Date Received |
2018-11-15
|
| Submitted Via |
Web
|
| Company Response |
Closed with explanation
|
| Consumer Disputed |
N/A
|
| Date Sent To Company |
2018-11-21
|
| Complaint What Happened |
I was offered a forebearance because I was impacted by hurricane Irma and was advised that I had to pay the payments at the end. With me being a new homeowner, I had no idea that this meant at the end of the 90 days. I thought it would be added on the backend of the loan. Since I didnt have 3 months of payments to pay at one time, I was forced into a remodification which I received paperwork that I had to sign and return showing a modified amount for XXXX and I did everything that I was advised to do and next thing I know, the payment skyrocket to XXXX. They moved a payment to escrow after I was advised to pay XXXX in XXXX. Now they are saying Im 2 months behind and are reporting to the credit bureau.
|
| Consumer Consent Provided |
Consent provided
|
|
|
2009806
|
2016-07-13
|
Application, originator, mortgage broker
|
Mortgage
|
|
| Issue |
Application, originator, mortgage broker
|
| Timely |
Yes
|
| Company |
PRIMELENDING, A PLAINSCAPITAL COMPANY
|
| Product |
Mortgage
|
| Sub Product |
Conventional fixed mortgage
|
| Date Received |
2016-07-13
|
| Submitted Via |
Web
|
| Company Response |
Closed with explanation
|
| Consumer Disputed |
No
|
| Date Sent To Company |
2016-07-15
|
| Company Public Response |
Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
|
| Consumer Consent Provided |
Other
|
|
|
1536992
|
2015-08-26
|
Application, originator, mortgage broker
|
Mortgage
|
|
| Issue |
Application, originator, mortgage broker
|
| Timely |
Yes
|
| Company |
PRIMELENDING, A PLAINSCAPITAL COMPANY
|
| Product |
Mortgage
|
| Sub Product |
Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)
|
| Date Received |
2015-08-26
|
| Submitted Via |
Web
|
| Company Response |
Closed with explanation
|
| Consumer Disputed |
No
|
| Date Sent To Company |
2015-08-26
|
| Company Public Response |
Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
|
| Complaint What Happened |
My husband and I were directed to Prime Lending located in XXXX XXXX, Florida via XXXX XXXX XXXX. We were pre-approved for our new construction home for approximately {$490000.00} by XXXX XXXX. We signed our contract, obtained all documentation that she requested and again were told that everything was on track for a late XX/XX/XXXX closing. A stipulation win prime lending was that we were required to sell our home. We placed our home on the market and accepted an offer within one day. We pushed closing out approximately two months and finally closed on our home XX/XX/XXXX. One thing that we made very clear to XXXX XXXX was that we want to ensure that there would be no stipulation or reason that we would not be able to obtain a mortgage for our new home. She assured us over and over again that things were fine. We had agreed to place 20 % down on our new home. We disclosed at the start of this process that I had a short sale in XX/XX/XXXX. My husband and I were both very skeptical in the beginning because we had done our research and many lenders stated that we had to wait XXXX years for FHA and four years for conventional after a short sale. When this was brought to XXXX attention, she stated that there would not be a problem. We placed out trust and our families future in her. We have XXXX young children and our biggest concern was uprooting them from our home and end up having nowhere to call home. On XX/XX/XXXX we closed on our home. On Sunday XX/XX/XXXX I opened my mail and found a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX that my husband and I were denied for our loan. You can imagine our surprise. XXXX XXXX never contacted us and in tern we sold our home and have no idea where we are going to take our XXXX and XXXX year old children. When we attempted to reach out to XXXX XXXX the next day, she avoided out phone calls and emails. It was n't until XXXX days later when she finally contacted my husband. She informed him that she was aware that we were denied on XX/XX/XXXX but did n't tell us because she " did n't want to ruin our weekend. '' Had she given us the professional courtesy when she found out that we did not qualify, we never would have sold our home. I feel that she was very unethical with us and failed to disclose multiple stipulations with obtaining a mortgage after a short sale. In my opinion, she should have known about these regulations and disclosed to us right from the beginning. We never would have proceeded with the purchase of a new home.
|
| Consumer Consent Provided |
Consent provided
|
|
|
760053
|
2014-03-11
|
Loan servicing, payments, escrow account
|
Mortgage
|
|
| Tags |
Servicemember
|
| Issue |
Loan servicing, payments, escrow account
|
| Timely |
Yes
|
| Company |
PRIMELENDING, A PLAINSCAPITAL COMPANY
|
| Product |
Mortgage
|
| Sub Product |
VA mortgage
|
| Date Received |
2014-03-11
|
| Submitted Via |
Web
|
| Company Response |
Closed with explanation
|
| Consumer Disputed |
No
|
| Date Sent To Company |
2014-03-14
|
| Consumer Consent Provided |
N/A
|
|
|
455163
|
2013-07-11
|
Settlement process and costs
|
Mortgage
|
|
| Issue |
Settlement process and costs
|
| Timely |
Yes
|
| Company |
PRIMELENDING, A PLAINSCAPITAL COMPANY
|
| Product |
Mortgage
|
| Sub Product |
FHA mortgage
|
| Date Received |
2013-07-11
|
| Submitted Via |
Web
|
| Company Response |
Closed with explanation
|
| Consumer Disputed |
No
|
| Date Sent To Company |
2013-07-15
|
| Consumer Consent Provided |
N/A
|
|
|
3060556
|
2018-10-30
|
Attempts to collect debt not owed
|
Debt collection
|
|
| Issue |
Attempts to collect debt not owed
|
| Timely |
Yes
|
| Company |
PRIMELENDING, A PLAINSCAPITAL COMPANY
|
| Product |
Debt collection
|
| Sub Issue |
Debt was paid
|
| Sub Product |
Mortgage debt
|
| Date Received |
2018-10-30
|
| Submitted Via |
Web
|
| Company Response |
Closed with explanation
|
| Consumer Disputed |
N/A
|
| Date Sent To Company |
2018-10-30
|
| Consumer Consent Provided |
Consent not provided
|
|
|
3051528
|
2018-10-19
|
Closing on a mortgage
|
Mortgage
|
|
| Issue |
Closing on a mortgage
|
| Timely |
Yes
|
| Company |
PRIMELENDING, A PLAINSCAPITAL COMPANY
|
| Product |
Mortgage
|
| Sub Product |
FHA mortgage
|
| Date Received |
2018-10-19
|
| Submitted Via |
Web
|
| Company Response |
Closed with explanation
|
| Consumer Disputed |
N/A
|
| Date Sent To Company |
2018-10-19
|
| Complaint What Happened |
Under the t.i.l.a act we wasn't fully disclosed of our rights of rescission no receipt was provided to us after we signed the promissory note and I've done a r.e.s.p.a and they have forged the note Dear Sir/Madame : Please be advised that the above-referenced borrowers in connection with a financial transaction that occurred on the abover teferenced date. Based upon information received from our client, an expert mortgage audit report, and our research of the property records, the filings with the UNITED STATES Securities and Exchange Commission and interviews with various mortgage brokers, lenders, appraisers, title agents, and closing agents, we believe there are claims against you and your company for negligence, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty, along with other claims in law and equity which total more in financial damages than the clients equity ( down payment ), costs of closing, all points and interest paid to date plus the par value of the subject mortgage note ( s ).
This is a substantial claim that may exceed the policy limits on any and all insurance policies issued that cover the risks in this claim.
Please forward a copy of this letter to any company that has issued a policy of insurance covering errors, omissions, negligence or any other guarantee or indemnification relative to the above-referenced loan closing. Failure to notify your insurance carrier may result in denial of coverage or denial of the duty to defend.
The above-referenced loan closing involved conflicting documentation and failure to disclose the existence of a Pooling and Service Agreement and Assignment and Assumption Agreement that predated the loan closing and provided for fees, profits and payments that were never intended to be disclosed to the borrower and that were withheld from the borrower before, during and after the subject loan closing. It was not until exhaustive research was performed that the true facts are emerging, and which have caused our client to express an immediate need and desire to rescind the alleged subject loan transaction.
Based upon conversations with our client and interviews with people who have knowledge of the practices and policies of the parties to this transaction, it is apparent that, contrary to federal and state law, you have participated in an extended pattern of conduct to further, foster, allow and promote an interstate conspiracy to deceive and defraud persons targeted as prospective borrowers in entire geographic regions of the the United States including but not limited to our client, and were further negligent in your supervision of your officers, directors, agents, affiliates, vendors and employees resulting in substantial financial and other injuries to our client.
Further based upon public filings, it appears that you, your insurance carriers, your agents, servants, vendors and employees must have known all or enough of the true facts to know that our client was not receiving the guidance, protection, due diligence or information to which our client was entitled and had our client been apprised of the true facts, our client would not have executed the papers that were presented as ordinary mortgage loan documents but which which in fact were part of an elaborate scheme for the execution of documents purporting to be loan documents but which resulted in the issuance of a negotiable instrument with the intent on your part, and undisclosed and unknown to our client, to change the terms and conditions of payment of the mortgage note from its stated terms, pay fees and profits to a variety of undisclosed third parties who were participating in the fraudulent sale of unregulated securities which purported to be backed by the mortgage note of our client and that appear to have misled investors into believing that the certificates they purchased were also backed by the property of our client.
Further, based upon conversation with our client, we have determined that the appraised value used in the loan closing was not computed in accordance with industry guidelines for using comparable time frames and geography and other indicia of probable value, as opposed to price.
The value reported to our client by the Lender and the Lender 's appraiser was intentionally or negligently tied to the contract price and was significantly higher than the real fair market value at that time. This disparity since has been easily corroborated by current values in the area, to wit : concurrent with the collapse of your scheme, the values of the real property of our client declined to the levels that existed before this scheme was initiated.
This indicates a probability that the appraisal review required of the nominal lender was omitted. In fact, based upon preliminary investigation, the appraisal review process was both omitted and intentionally terminated, along with the re-assigned or terminated personnel that would have performed such functions. It also indicates that the cost of the loan was significantly higher that what was reported on the GFE and other disclosure documents at the time of closing.
Further it is apparent that you were aware and participated in the deception by which our client was led to believe that the nominal lender was the actual lender and that the nominal lender was renting its registration and charter to third parties who were neither chartered financial institutions nor registered business entities in the state in which the property was located.
The transaction was known by you and the others at the alleged loan closing to be a sham through which unregulated, unregistered and unchartered people and businesses engaged in banking and lending contrary to federal and state law.
Taken together with the experts finding of deceptive lending practices concerning affordability and tangible benefits, the true term of the loan was significantly overstated, in that the future reset of payments made it highly likely that the loan would go into default at a time much earlier than than the expressed term of the mortgage note.
This was a fact known by every participant at the loan closing except our client.
Reducing the term of the loan to the time of expected default and adding the inflated appraisal resulted in an APR significantly exceeding the legal interest limit under state law and violate applicable laws on usury entitling our client to nullification of the note, extinguishment of the mortgage, treble damages and attorney fees, in addition to the refunds, rebates and damages stated in the experts report.
Based upon reports received from XXXX XXXX XXXX legal compliance division, it is apparent from filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission that the loan was table funded and that the nominal lender was in fact a stand-in for a series of parties who were not disclosed as the source of the funds, not disclosed as the recipient of fees ( including the nominal lender who may have received a fee of 2.5 % of the par value of the mortgage note ), and not disclosed as the actual lender in the subject loan transaction. Again while all of the participants at the loan closing were aware of these facts, our client was kept in the dark. Hence, our client was never notified regarding the identity, authority and regulation, charter, or registration of the actual lender.
Further, it can not be determined from the filings of the referenced parties, nor the notices to the borrower, who is the current actual holder in due course, who is entitled to payment under the mortgage note, whether additional third party payments were made from insurance products that are reported to have guaranteed either the payments or the principal of the mortgage note, or whether in fact the mortgage note has been prepaid, overpaid, or any balance is owed and if so, to whom. This prevents the borrower from notifying the true source of funds ( the actual lender ) of borrower 's intent to rescind. It is our determination, based upon these facts, that the loan closing was never completed and that therefore the 3 day right of rescission was neither waived nor did it expire. Under the Federal Truth in Lending Act the appropriate party must either comply with the rescission or file a declaratory action seeking to avoid the rescission.
PLEASE GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY
|
| Consumer Consent Provided |
Consent provided
|
|
|
2465579
|
2017-04-25
|
Trouble during payment process
|
Mortgage
|
|
| Issue |
Trouble during payment process
|
| Timely |
Yes
|
| Company |
PRIMELENDING, A PLAINSCAPITAL COMPANY
|
| Product |
Mortgage
|
| Sub Product |
Conventional home mortgage
|
| Date Received |
2017-04-25
|
| Submitted Via |
Web
|
| Company Response |
Closed with explanation
|
| Consumer Disputed |
N/A
|
| Date Sent To Company |
2017-04-25
|
| Company Public Response |
Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
|
| Complaint What Happened |
Hello, we purchased a home in Florida XXXX / XXXX / XXXX . We got a conventional mortgage with Prime Lending. We had our current home ( at the time ) for sale and planned on paying off the Prime Lending mortgage when the current home ( at the time ) sold. We did n't want to put 20 % down so as not to drain our saving if the home for sale did n't sell quickly. So, Prime Lending required us to have Property Mortgage Insurance ( BP PMI ) - they suggested Single Premium Borrower paid Mortgage Insurance and never mentioned it was the non-refundable option. So, we paid over {$3100.00} at closing for this one time premium. Our PMI disclosure that we signed shows a refund may be possible. In XXXX our home sold. In XXXX we paid off our Prime Lending mortgage but Prime had already sold the note to XXXX XXXX . So, since our loan was paid off we wanted a pro-rated refund of our one t ime PMI payment. I talked to XXXX XXXX and they said it 's not refundable - Prime says they sold it so their hands are washed. If I understand it correctly, a refund is possible if the mortgage is paid off according to the 1998 Home Owners p rotection act. The insurance company was XXXX and even on their webpage it shows 'Non-Refundable ' BPMI is refundable under th e 1998 Act. Can you help - am I understanding the ACT incorrectly? Thank you
|
| Consumer Consent Provided |
Consent provided
|
|
|
1709685
|
2015-12-20
|
Settlement process and costs
|
Mortgage
|
|
| Issue |
Settlement process and costs
|
| Timely |
Yes
|
| Company |
PRIMELENDING, A PLAINSCAPITAL COMPANY
|
| Product |
Mortgage
|
| Sub Product |
Conventional fixed mortgage
|
| Date Received |
2015-12-20
|
| Submitted Via |
Web
|
| Company Response |
Closed with monetary relief
|
| Consumer Disputed |
No
|
| Date Sent To Company |
2015-12-20
|
| Company Public Response |
Company believes complaint is the result of an isolated error
|
| Consumer Consent Provided |
Consent not provided
|
|
|
1583682
|
2015-09-28
|
Managing the loan or lease
|
Consumer Loan
|
|
| Issue |
Managing the loan or lease
|
| Timely |
Yes
|
| Company |
PRIMELENDING, A PLAINSCAPITAL COMPANY
|
| Product |
Consumer Loan
|
| Sub Product |
Installment loan
|
| Date Received |
2015-09-28
|
| Submitted Via |
Referral
|
| Company Response |
Closed with explanation
|
| Consumer Disputed |
No
|
| Date Sent To Company |
2015-10-01
|
| Company Public Response |
Company disputes the facts presented in the complaint
|
| Consumer Consent Provided |
N/A
|
|
|
2478124
|
2017-05-08
|
Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage
|
Mortgage
|
|
| Issue |
Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage
|
| Timely |
Yes
|
| Company |
PRIMELENDING, A PLAINSCAPITAL COMPANY
|
| Product |
Mortgage
|
| Sub Product |
Conventional home mortgage
|
| Date Received |
2017-05-08
|
| Submitted Via |
Web
|
| Company Response |
Closed with explanation
|
| Consumer Disputed |
N/A
|
| Date Sent To Company |
2017-05-08
|
| Company Public Response |
Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
|
| Complaint What Happened |
My husband and I have been renting here in Florida since XXXX XXXX XXXX and the plan was to purchase a home once our lease was coming to an end. We began our house hunting process in XXXX XXXX with the expectation that we would be able to find a home, apply for mortgage and close prior to our lease termination of XXXX XXXX XXXX . We began by contacting a realtor that we had met here when looking for our rental in XXXX . XXXX XXXX with XXXX XXXX . We found a home and since we trusted our realtor at that time we asked about mortgage lenders. Our realtor was happy to provide a list of lenders that she had used in the past with other clients. One w as XXXX XXXX . My husband and I contacted XXXX XXXX , the individual suggested. We were asked to submit the usual information beginning on XXXX XXXX XXXX , taxes, etc. to obtain pre-approval. In XXXX , my husband and I met with our realtor after seeing multiple homes and decided to make an offer on a home. Now, we did not know at this time what our approval would be, however, our realtor promised us that IF WE WERE UNABLE TO OBTAIN financing we would receive our earnest money deposit back. XXXX XXXX came and XXXX requested the same information that had been sent in XXXX . Our AS IS property contract ( which our realtor stated was a standard contract ) stated that the closing was to occur on or before XXXX XXXX XXXX . By XXXX XXXX , my husband and I still had no denial or approval letter. We contacted our realtor who provided another mortgage person XXXX XXXX , with Prime Lending. At this point, my husband and I just wanted to know whether we qualified for the home or not. As suggested, we submitted our information to XXXX for her review to determine if we were able to qualify for this home or not. XXXX assured us that she would do what she could to close the house for us. We trusted that we were on the right path now that we had switched to using XXXX and Prime Lending to provide our mortgage. Needless to say, week by week went b y with no approval and no denial. We were asked every week to submit additional information. Each week we were told that " we should know something by next Monday or Tuesday ''. There were addendums changing the date from XXXX XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX then back to XXXX XXXX XXXX . This went on from XXXX XXXX until past the contract date of XXXX XXXX XXXX . We were told to get inspections, appraisal etc. We were told by XXXX that she was going to take our loan " to the board '' to get " special approval ''. The week of the contracted close date we still had no approval and no denial letter. We were contacted by our realtor and XXXX stating that my husband and I could rent the house from the sellers for a price that we were not told. We told them that we wanted to PURCHASE the house and not rent. Keep in mind that we STILL have not been told what amount, if any, we qualify for or that the loan could not be done. By this time, the contract had died, it was past XXXX XXXX . I contacted XXXX on XXXX XXXX and said that I did n't understand why the sellers could not have contributed to closing costs or changed the price of the house in order to make the deal. She said " I am at a cabin for the weekend, let me work on something and I will call XXXX tomorrow ''. Again, we still had no idea what we did or did not qualify for. On Monday, XXXX XXXX I contacted XXXX and asked for an update. She stated that I needed to contact XXXX . At this point, my husband and I are devastated, still have no idea what we qualify for and the idea of having to start this whole process over again is daunting. We asked our realtor to show us another house. XXXX states that she has talked to XXXX and XXXX has " worked out a deal with the sellers '' ( to t he house that has now come and gone ). We meet at a different house that my husband and I had wanted to see and we were greeted by XXXX ( even though we did not feel that she had kept her oath to keep our best interest in mind ) who was carrying the hard copy of a " great deal '' that was previously emailed to us. This " great deal '' was a mortgage loan in our name for 75 % of the purchase price and seller second that we were to pay 9 % interest to seller with promise to use Prime Lending to refinance ( {$10000.00} in 4-6 months ) AN D a balloon payment of {$55000.00} at end of 12 month if we could not refinance. When we met our realtor the evening of XXXX XXXX , she stated that " you have to sign this, you 're still under contract because this is your financing and it 's a great deal ''. I informed her that we did not have to sign anything. These documents also included another extension which we did not sign. We then requested that we receive our {$3000.00} back since we never received any approval or denial letter. After all of this, I requested an approval or pre-qualify letter from XXXX on XXXX XXXX since she had been " processing '' this loan since XXXX XXXX supposedly. The final result, which took a lot of pleading, was that we would qualify for {$300000.00}. Which obviously does not qualify us for a home of {$370000.00}. My husband and I do not have a ton of money, and had we fallen victim to the pressure to sign this " great deal '' we would have lost everything that we own. We are sincerely apologetic to the sellers of this property as it is my understanding that they knew nothing of what we were going through. We would request that we receive half of the earnest money {$1500.00} and let the sellers have the other half as they were innocent victims of this craziness as well.
|
| Consumer Consent Provided |
Consent provided
|
|
|
3052950
|
2018-10-19
|
Trouble during payment process
|
Mortgage
|
|
| Issue |
Trouble during payment process
|
| Timely |
Yes
|
| Company |
PRIMELENDING, A PLAINSCAPITAL COMPANY
|
| Product |
Mortgage
|
| Sub Product |
Conventional home mortgage
|
| Date Received |
2018-10-19
|
| Submitted Via |
Referral
|
| Company Response |
Closed with explanation
|
| Consumer Disputed |
N/A
|
| Date Sent To Company |
2018-10-22
|
| Consumer Consent Provided |
N/A
|
|
|
3051292
|
2018-10-19
|
Closing on a mortgage
|
Mortgage
|
|
| Issue |
Closing on a mortgage
|
| Timely |
Yes
|
| Company |
PRIMELENDING, A PLAINSCAPITAL COMPANY
|
| Product |
Mortgage
|
| Sub Product |
FHA mortgage
|
| Date Received |
2018-10-19
|
| Submitted Via |
Web
|
| Company Response |
Closed with explanation
|
| Consumer Disputed |
N/A
|
| Date Sent To Company |
2018-10-19
|
| Complaint What Happened |
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Dear Sir/Madame : Please be advised that the above-referenced borrowers in connection with a financial transaction that occurred on the above referenced date. Based upon information received from our client, an expert mortgage audit report, and our research of the property records, the filings with the UNITED STATES Securities and Exchange Commission and interviews with various mortgage brokers, lenders, appraisers, title agents, and closing agents, we believe there are claims against you and your company for negligence, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty, along with other claims in law and equity which total more in financial damages than the clients equity ( down payment ), costs of closing, all points and interest paid to date plus the par value of the subject mortgage note ( s ).
This is a substantial claim that may exceed the policy limits on any and all insurance policies issued that cover the risks in this claim.
Please forward a copy of this letter to any company that has issued a policy of insurance covering errors, omissions, negligence or any other guarantee or indemnification relative to the above-referenced loan closing. Failure to notify your insurance carrier may result in denial of coverage or denial of the duty to defend.
The above-referenced loan closing involved conflicting documentation and failure to disclose the existence of a Pooling and Service Agreement and Assignment and Assumption Agreement that predated the loan closing and provided for fees, profits and payments that were never intended to be disclosed to the borrower and that were withheld from the borrower before, during and after the subject loan closing. It was not until exhaustive research was performed that the true facts are emerging, and which have caused our client to express an immediate need and desire to rescind the alleged subject loan transaction.
Based upon conversations with our client and interviews with people who have knowledge of the practices and policies of the parties to this transaction, it is apparent that, contrary to federal and state law, you have participated in an extended pattern of conduct to further, foster, allow and promote an interstate conspiracy to deceive and defraud persons targeted as prospective borrowers in entire geographic regions of the the United States including but not limited to our client, and were further negligent in your supervision of your officers, directors, agents, affiliates, vendors and employees resulting in substantial financial and other injuries to our client.
Further based upon public filings, it appears that you, your insurance carriers, your agents, servants, vendors and employees must have known all or enough of the true facts to know that our client was not receiving the guidance, protection, due diligence or information to which our client was entitled and had our client been apprised of the true facts, our client would not have executed the papers that were presented as ordinary mortgage loan documents but which which in fact were part of an elaborate scheme for the execution of documents purporting to be loan documents but which resulted in the issuance of a negotiable instrument with the intent on your part, and undisclosed and unknown to our client, to change the terms and conditions of payment of the mortgage note from its stated terms, pay fees and profits to a variety of undisclosed third parties who were participating in the fraudulent sale of unregulated securities which purported to be backed by the mortgage note of our client and that appear to have misled investors into believing that the certificates they purchased were also backed by the property of our client.
Further, based upon conversation with our client, we have determined that the appraised value used in the loan closing was not computed in accordance with industry guidelines for using comparable time frames and geography and other indicia of probable value, as opposed to price.
The value reported to our client by the Lender and the Lender 's appraiser was intentionally or negligently tied to the contract price and was significantly higher than the real fair market value at that time. This disparity since has been easily corroborated by current values in the area, to wit : concurrent with the collapse of your scheme, the values of the real property of our client declined to the levels that existed before this scheme was initiated.
This indicates a probability that the appraisal review required of the nominal lender was omitted. In fact, based upon preliminary investigation, the appraisal review process was both omitted and intentionally terminated, along with the re-assigned or terminated personnel that would have performed such functions. It also indicates that the cost of the loan was significantly higher that what was reported on the GFE and other disclosure documents at the time of closing.
Further it is apparent that you were aware and participated in the deception by which our client was led to believe that the nominal lender was the actual lender and that the nominal lender was renting its registration and charter to third parties who were neither chartered financial institutions nor registered business entities in the state in which the property was located.
The transaction was known by you and the others at the alleged loan closing to be a sham through which unregulated, unregistered and unchartered people and businesses engaged in banking and lending contrary to federal and state law.
Taken together with the experts finding of deceptive lending practices concerning affordability and tangible benefits, the true term of the loan was significantly overstated, in that the future reset of payments made it highly likely that the loan would go into default at a time much earlier than than the expressed term of the mortgage note.
This was a fact known by every participant at the loan closing except our client.
Reducing the term of the loan to the time of expected default and adding the inflated appraisal resulted in an APR significantly exceeding the legal interest limit under state law and violate applicable laws on usury entitling our client to nullification of the note, extinguishment of the mortgage, treble damages and attorney fees, in addition to the refunds, rebates and damages stated in the experts report.
Based upon reports received from XXXX XXXX XXXX legal compliance division, it is apparent from filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission that the loan was table funded and that the nominal lender was in fact a stand-in for a series of parties who were not disclosed as the source of the funds, not disclosed as the recipient of fees ( including the nominal lender who may have received a fee of 2.5 % of the par value of the mortgage note ), and not disclosed as the actual lender in the subject loan transaction. Again while all of the participants at the loan closing were aware of these facts, our client was kept in the dark. Hence, our client was never notified regarding the identity, authority and regulation, charter, or registration of the actual lender.
Further, it can not be determined from the filings of the referenced parties, nor the notices to the borrower, who is the current actual holder in due course, who is entitled to payment under the mortgage note, whether additional third party payments were made from insurance products that are reported to have guaranteed either the payments or the principal of the mortgage note, or whether in fact the mortgage note has been prepaid, overpaid, or any balance is owed and if so, to whom. This prevents the borrower from notifying the true source of funds ( the actual lender ) of borrower 's intent to rescind. It is our determination, based upon these facts, that the loan closing was never completed and that therefore the 3 day right of rescission was neither waived nor did it expire. Under the Federal Truth in Lending Act the appropriate party must either comply with the rescission or file a declaratory action seeking to avoid the rescission.
PLEASE GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY.
Very truly yours,
|
| Consumer Consent Provided |
Consent provided
|
|
|
3516084
|
2020-01-31
|
Struggling to pay mortgage
|
Mortgage
|
|
| Tags |
Older American, Servicemember
|
| Issue |
Struggling to pay mortgage
|
| Timely |
Yes
|
| Company |
PRIMELENDING, A PLAINSCAPITAL COMPANY
|
| Product |
Mortgage
|
| Sub Product |
VA mortgage
|
| Date Received |
2020-01-31
|
| Submitted Via |
Phone
|
| Company Response |
Closed with explanation
|
| Consumer Disputed |
N/A
|
| Date Sent To Company |
2020-01-31
|
| Consumer Consent Provided |
N/A
|
|
|
3084726
|
2018-11-27
|
Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage
|
Mortgage
|
|
| Tags |
Older American
|
| Issue |
Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage
|
| Timely |
Yes
|
| Company |
PRIMELENDING, A PLAINSCAPITAL COMPANY
|
| Product |
Mortgage
|
| Sub Product |
Conventional home mortgage
|
| Date Received |
2018-11-27
|
| Submitted Via |
Postal mail
|
| Company Response |
Closed with explanation
|
| Consumer Disputed |
N/A
|
| Date Sent To Company |
2018-12-12
|
| Consumer Consent Provided |
N/A
|
|
|
1989282
|
2016-06-29
|
Application, originator, mortgage broker
|
Mortgage
|
|
| Tags |
Older American
|
| Issue |
Application, originator, mortgage broker
|
| Timely |
Yes
|
| Company |
PRIMELENDING, A PLAINSCAPITAL COMPANY
|
| Product |
Mortgage
|
| Sub Product |
Conventional fixed mortgage
|
| Date Received |
2016-06-29
|
| Submitted Via |
Web
|
| Company Response |
Closed with explanation
|
| Consumer Disputed |
No
|
| Date Sent To Company |
2016-06-29
|
| Company Public Response |
Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
|
| Consumer Consent Provided |
Consent not provided
|
|
|
3088318
|
2018-11-30
|
Closing on a mortgage
|
Mortgage
|
|
| Issue |
Closing on a mortgage
|
| Timely |
Yes
|
| Company |
PRIMELENDING, A PLAINSCAPITAL COMPANY
|
| Product |
Mortgage
|
| Sub Product |
FHA mortgage
|
| Date Received |
2018-11-30
|
| Submitted Via |
Phone
|
| Company Response |
Closed with explanation
|
| Consumer Disputed |
N/A
|
| Date Sent To Company |
2018-12-12
|
| Consumer Consent Provided |
N/A
|
|
|
2933958
|
2018-06-12
|
Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage
|
Mortgage
|
|
| Issue |
Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage
|
| Timely |
Yes
|
| Company |
PRIMELENDING, A PLAINSCAPITAL COMPANY
|
| Product |
Mortgage
|
| Sub Product |
Other type of mortgage
|
| Date Received |
2018-06-12
|
| Submitted Via |
Web
|
| Company Response |
Closed with explanation
|
| Consumer Disputed |
N/A
|
| Date Sent To Company |
2018-06-12
|
| Consumer Consent Provided |
Consent not provided
|
|
|
2735625
|
2017-11-22
|
Trouble during payment process
|
Mortgage
|
|
| Issue |
Trouble during payment process
|
| Timely |
Yes
|
| Company |
PRIMELENDING, A PLAINSCAPITAL COMPANY
|
| Product |
Mortgage
|
| Sub Product |
Other type of mortgage
|
| Date Received |
2017-11-22
|
| Submitted Via |
Web
|
| Company Response |
Closed with explanation
|
| Consumer Disputed |
N/A
|
| Date Sent To Company |
2017-11-22
|
| Company Public Response |
Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
|
| Complaint What Happened |
This complaint pertains to illegal business practices employed by PrimeLending ( XXXX XXXX ).
They service my primary residence mortgage.
As a result of hurricane Irma, I was granted a 3-month disaster forbearance payment deferment, which covers the months of XXXX, XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, with regular payment resuming on XX/XX/XXXX.
Despite my loan being put on hold, I get assaulted by daily calls, emails and default letters. I called PrimeLending several times and tried to explain that I am not supposed to make ANY payments until XX/XX/XXXX - which they have acknowledged every time while promising to end the illegal debt collection efforts.
Despite their promises, I keep getting hit with collections calls, default letters and emails.
The explanation I was given was " our system is outdated '' and can not stop sending those notifications despite me being on a forbearance plan.
I plan on filling complaints with BBB and all other agencies and cousumer protection and advocacies entities to make this stop.
|
| Consumer Consent Provided |
Consent provided
|
|
|
713934
|
2014-02-12
|
Application, originator, mortgage broker
|
Mortgage
|
|
| Issue |
Application, originator, mortgage broker
|
| Timely |
Yes
|
| Company |
PRIMELENDING, A PLAINSCAPITAL COMPANY
|
| Product |
Mortgage
|
| Sub Product |
FHA mortgage
|
| Date Received |
2014-02-12
|
| Submitted Via |
Web
|
| Company Response |
Closed with monetary relief
|
| Consumer Disputed |
No
|
| Date Sent To Company |
2014-02-12
|
| Consumer Consent Provided |
N/A
|
|
|
1174846
|
2014-12-30
|
Application, originator, mortgage broker
|
Mortgage
|
|
| Issue |
Application, originator, mortgage broker
|
| Timely |
Yes
|
| Company |
PRIMELENDING, A PLAINSCAPITAL COMPANY
|
| Product |
Mortgage
|
| Sub Product |
FHA mortgage
|
| Date Received |
2014-12-30
|
| Submitted Via |
Web
|
| Company Response |
Closed with explanation
|
| Consumer Disputed |
No
|
| Date Sent To Company |
2014-12-30
|
| Consumer Consent Provided |
N/A
|
|
|
860953
|
2014-05-20
|
Application, originator, mortgage broker
|
Mortgage
|
|
| Tags |
Servicemember
|
| Issue |
Application, originator, mortgage broker
|
| Timely |
Yes
|
| Company |
PRIMELENDING, A PLAINSCAPITAL COMPANY
|
| Product |
Mortgage
|
| Sub Product |
VA mortgage
|
| Date Received |
2014-05-20
|
| Submitted Via |
Phone
|
| Company Response |
Closed with explanation
|
| Consumer Disputed |
Yes
|
| Date Sent To Company |
2014-05-28
|
| Consumer Consent Provided |
N/A
|
|
|
2198870
|
2016-11-07
|
Loan modification,collection,foreclosure
|
Mortgage
|
|
| Issue |
Loan modification,collection,foreclosure
|
| Timely |
Yes
|
| Company |
PRIMELENDING, A PLAINSCAPITAL COMPANY
|
| Product |
Mortgage
|
| Sub Product |
Conventional fixed mortgage
|
| Date Received |
2016-11-07
|
| Submitted Via |
Web
|
| Company Response |
Closed with explanation
|
| Consumer Disputed |
No
|
| Date Sent To Company |
2016-11-08
|
| Company Public Response |
Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
|
| Consumer Consent Provided |
Other
|
|
