{"took":317,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":9,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16328435","_score":14.651794,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Since XX/XX/year>, I have been attempting to transfer funds to the XXXX XXXX through Boss Revolution. The initial transaction was held for compliance reasons, and I was asked to provide several documents, including my most recent account statement. Since statements are issued on a 30-day cycle, I provided the XXXX statement, but the transactions continued to be declined. \n\nI attempted the transfer multiple times with two different beneficiaries, and each attempt was still declined despite having provided all requested documentation. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, I initiated another transaction. At this point, I had employees waiting to be paid and an active construction project for the second level of the apartment unit that my wife, XXXX XXXX, and I own. We currently operate three apartments through XXXX, and delays in payment directly affect our operations. \n\nThis XXXX transaction was again held, and I was asked for additional information, which I provided. I was then asked for account details that were not relevant to the transaction and incorrectly told that my account was new. I clarified that the account is not new. \n\nAfter multiple phone calls and back-and-forth communications, I was toldover a recorded linethat if the XXXX statement had not yet been issued, a transaction history from XX/XX/year> through XX/XX/year> would be sufficient. Following those instructions, I went to my financial institution and obtained a stamped transaction history for that period. \n\nDespite complying with this request, the transaction was declined again, and I was told an official statement was requiredan instruction that directly contradicts what I was previously told, especially considering the XXXX statement has not yet been issued. \n\nTo demonstrate the source of funds, I have already provided and/or answered all of the following : XXXX bank statement Stamped transaction history ( XX/XX/year> XX/XX/year> ) Construction invoice Proof of income Last two months of Airbnb statements I have complied promptly and in good faith with every request made, yet the transaction continues to be denied without consistent reasoning.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-02T15:52:03.000Z","issue":"Money was not available when promised","sub_product":"International money transfer","zip_code":"12306","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16328435","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"IDT Telecom, Inc","date_received":"2025-10-02T15:39:47.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["At this point, I had employees waiting to be paid and an active construction <em>project</em> for the second level of the apartment unit that my wife, XXXX XXXX, and I own. We currently operate three apartments through XXXX, and delays in payment directly affect our operations. \n\nThis XXXX transaction was again held, and I was asked for additional <em>information</em>, which I provided. I was then asked for account details that were not <em>relevant</em> to the transaction and incorrectly told that my account was new."]},"sort":[14.651794,"16328435"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6038835","_score":12.417737,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"My fiance and I applied for a mortgage pre-approval with PenFed on XX/XX/XXXX and made an offer on a condo shortly thereafter. PenFeds Loan Officer responded well, got all our information, repeatedly lauded our creditworthiness, and expressed some about our current assets. At no point did they express concerns about the condo building itself. We procured a home inspection and received the condo disclosures required by Virginia state law. I reviewed these thoroughly. Though not stellar, it was clear that the association was doing more than the minimum upkeep and was funding its reserves to XXXX XXXX standards, so we decided to press on with the sale. We were set to close on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I called the Loan Processor that PenFed had assigned to us a couple days earlier. We discussed what steps would be needed to progress through underwriting, what documents would be needed, etc. Among the requirements, he mentioned that they needed the condo associations financials. He said they would request them from the association directly, but when I told him I had sat least some of what they needed, he said I should go ahead and upload them. PenFeds applicant portal provides specific places for these documents to be uploaded by the applicant, so I uploaded them in the designated space within an hour of that phone call. In all my subsequent conversations with our Loan Processor and/or Loan Officer, no one from PenFed ever mentioned any concerns about the association or the documents I uploaded until XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, eight days before closing, our Loan Processor called me to warn that it appeared unlikely that PenFed would approve the loan because the condo association was not contributing the required 10 % of its budget to its reserve fund. This was false, and I said as much on the call and in a follow up email. His Supervisor called me later that day to reiterate this concern. I reiterated that it wasnt true, the Supervisor referred to notes left by PenFeds condo review team as jargon that he didnt understand well enough to explain but said that theyd call back the next day with a final answer. The next day the Supervisor called back to offer clarity on the problem : he now agreed that the association was meeting the 10 % requirement. The concern now was that the association had sent its most recent reserve study, which PenFed apparently doesnt request ( but which I had provide on XX/XX/XXXX ). The reserve study concludes that, to keep the reserve fund balance above a recommended minimum amount and fund the recommended improvements XXXX recommends the community increase annual dues to at least {$280000.00} by Year 8 of the study period ( 2029 ). The study does not describe any deferred maintenance at all, makes no suggestion that any repair is overdue, but simply states that, Current reserves do not allow for funding of all the recommended projects on the timelines shown. Deferral of some projects may be necessary if considerable increases in funding are not implemented. For context, current reserve contributions are at about 11 % of the budget, {$73000.00} in 2022 ; the study states that it was at {$68000.00} during the engineers visit. \n\nI noted that the study is not assessing or making a conclusion about only what is needed to fund necessary maintenance and repairs ( i.e. those affecting habitability, safety, structural integrity, per XXXX XXXX ), and that the majority of that significant increase is to cover the cost of the engineers recommended but discretionary work, to be done on the engineers recommended timeline ( which is provided as Appendix XXXX of the report ). Examples of these recommendations include : the purchase of new pool furniture, upgrades to unit kitchens, superfluous repainting, and similar cosmetic or non-essential items. The Supervisor reiterated only that they cant unsee it, despite the fact that they do not usually request it, and that it reflected mismanagement. He said he would call back with a final answer later that day.\n\nThe supervisors Manager called me back about 40 minutes later to say that they were denying the loan because the association was unwarrantable under XXXX XXXX standards. I suppose its not her job to be kind, but for what its worth, she was rude, abrupt, condescending, and dismissive for the entirety of the 41 minute phone call that followed. I repeatedly asked for an explanation. I dont expect PenFed to give a mortgage for a unit that XXXX XXXX wont buy, but there is no indication that this association does not meet XXXX XXXX standards. However, she was not able to provide any coherent explanation. \n\nFrom what I was able to get from her, the Association, in its questionnaire, referred the lender to the reserve study in response to the questionnaires inquiry about its plan for its deferred maintenance components/items to be repairs or replaced. PenFed has apparently interpreted this answer to mean that everything which the study recommends is deferred maintenance or a necessary repair, replacement of the pool furniture included. The Manager repeatedly told me that this association has deferred maintenance, despite no evidence of that in the reserve study or elsewhere, and failed to tell me why she believed that when I asked her to tell me where she was getting that information. Instead, she kept referring to this questionnaire answer and quoting a line from the reserve study : Current reserves do not allow for funding of all the recommended projects on the timelines shown. \n\nThe conflation of recommended projects with deferred maintenance/items to be repaired or replaced appears to be at the heart of this dispute. No rational reading of the questionnaire and the study can support the suggestion that the association intended to label all of the engineering firms recommended projects as deferred maintenance under this definition. The study itself does not say that everything it recommends is necessary or that any maintenance has been deferred. Again, the majority of the recommended work is discretionary, cosmetic, or aimed at improving the building rather than maintaining it. It is clear that PenFeds review of these documents was cursory at best, and my conversations with the Manager leaves me fairly convinced that no one ever read past the fist 6 pages of the 47 page reserve study. Ultimately, the Manager made it very clear that, regardless of what was true or false. She then hung up on me.\n\nTo me, and to any reasonable reader, it seems clear that Association referred PenFed to this study because this study does answer the question : it describes needed maintenance ( e.g. the water supplier rising pipes will soon be due for replacement ) and it describes the Associations plan to pay for those things ( e.g. theyre are preemptively replacing two per year, two were done as of the study date and 18 remained ). The fact that the study also recommends a great deal of superfluous work does not seem to be relevant. The obviousness of this, and the unreasonableness of PenFeds review, is confirmed by the fact that three other mortgage banks read the same documents and issued mortgages in this property within 60 days of PenFeds decision, including the bank that issues a mortgage on this exact unit to the buyers that bought it after PendFed pulled the rug out from under us at the last minute ( see XXXX XXXX property records, instrument numbers XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ). PenFeds representatives have claimed that they called XXXX XXXX, after they had already denied out loan, to confirm its decision and they were told that this loan was indeed unwarrantable. These property records are proof to the contrary ; I do not believe that call occurred, but if it did then they have clearly misrepresented it to me. \n\nDuring my several conversations with various representatives of PenFed after this, it became abundantly clear that the underwriting and loan processing teams that was reviewing the Condominium Associations documents were simply unfamiliar with these types of documents or with the terms used within them. This team, up to and including PenFeds underwriting manager, demonstrably lacked the knowledge and training necessary to read and understand these documents or the XXXX XXXX requirements that they were ostensibly implementing. It was evident in some cases that that they simply had not read the documents that they were relying on at all, but rather had skimmed them at best. Perhaps most egregiously, we learned after PenFed had already decided to deny this loan that it had evaluated these documents according XXXX XXXX requirements which have been suspended since XX/XX/XXXX. PenFeds representative expressed surprise to hear this, and requested time to verify that the current requirements, which I emailed to them, were accurate. \n\nWe applied to PenFed with the understanding that it was an experienced and competent mortgage lender. Instead, we have found that they were operating under out-of-date XXXX XXXX  requirements and without properly trained loan processors. PenFed has made no justification for this decision or for the timing of this decision, and has repeatedly conceded that they could have made it much earlier than they did. I provided the reserve study, which appears to be at the heart of this dispute, to Pen Fed two weeks before they looked at it, along with other condo financial documents. They ignored it until they got the questionnaire, and then apparently rushed a review of the entire package in less than a day. Had they performed their review and flagged this concern on XX/XX/XXXX, we almost certainly could have arranged alternative financing. At the very least, notifying us before we had incurred significant expenses, given our landlord notice that we wouldnt be renewing our lease, etc., would have allowed us to mitigate the fallout. I have repeatedly been asked for an explanation for this delay and repeatedly been rebuffed. \n\nPenFeds most recent letter to me continues to assert The 2022 Reserve Study and 2022 Budget indicated that the Condo Project does not meet XXXX XXXX requirement for it to maintain a minimum annual budgeted replacement reserve allocation of 10 %. This is demonstrably untrue, and they had admitted is untrue ; why they are reverting to this position is baffling to me. This letter further attempts to rewrite history, asserting for the first time after dozens of calls and emails that PenFed did review the documents I uploaded only a week after I uploaded them ( although, if this is true, they flagged no concerns to me at that time ). PenFeds had a duty to perform an honest, good faith review of these documents. Instead, it waited until the last minute to perform a negligent review, and it now rests its decision on information that both PenFed and any reasonable person would understand to be false.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-10-01T13:25:44.000Z","issue":"Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"22202","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6038835","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"PENTAGON FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2022-10-01T13:17:18.000Z","state":"VA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The fact that the study also recommends a great deal of superfluous work does not seem to be <em>relevant</em>."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[12.417737,"6038835"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17453106","_score":8.323831,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing a complaint regarding serious and repeated issues with the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America ( NACA ), including misrepresentation of program terms, contradictory instructions, unexplained delays, inconsistent underwriting requirements, and unjust disqualification after approval. \nI became a NACA member in XXXX and was not qualified until XXXX XXXX years later. I was given a six-month qualification window ( expiring XXXX XXXX, XXXX ). During this time, I entered multiple contracts, submitted properties for review, and paid required NACA inspection fees. \nIn XX/XX/XXXX, after months of activity, NACA abruptly revoked my qualification without notice or guidance. My counselor questioned my XXXX tax filing, despite prior confirmation that filing an extension would NOT affect my qualification. For nearly six months, I was never informed of any risk, policy change, or requirement. \nI re-entered qualification in XXXX and am now in contract again. My PSL was submitted XX/XX/XXXX, and I signed a purchase agreement on XX/XX/XXXX. However, NACA has : failed to update my XXXX since XX/XX/XXXX failed to update my affordability provided contradictory action items requested employer documents then stated they were not needed repeatedly canceled meetings left me without guidance despite an active contract and urgent deadlines These delays place my purchase at risk.\n\nNACA publicly advertises no closing costs, no lender fees, credit does not matter, and a 2835 day streamlined closing. However, I was told that closing funds and a 10 % contingency fee were required, that credit history mattered, and that the timeline was significantly longer. Many property types NACA says are eligible are not available in California. \nThis appears to be a pattern of unfair, deceptive, and inconsistent practices that have cost me time, money, and opportunities for homeownership. \nand I am currently in my second qualification round with NACA. I first became a member in XXXX and entered my first qualification phase in XX/XX/XXXX. During that time, I was misinformed, mishandled, and ultimately prevented from completing a purchase. Unfortunately, many of the same issues have now occurred again during my second attemptat the most crucial stage, while I am in contract for a home. \nI am currently under contract for a home that is perfect for mewith a seller and agent who are both familiar with NACA and fully supportive of the program. My PSL was submitted on XX/XX/XXXX, I signed the contract on XX/XX/XXXX, and amendments were signed on XX/XX/XXXX. I have two inspections scheduled for XX/XX/XXXX. \nFor weeks, my portal was completely clear of action items, aside from the standard request to upload check stubs. Between XX/XX/XXXX and approximately XX/XX/XXXX, I was not given any tasks or directives. Then, suddenly on XX/XX/XXXX, I received an extensive list of new action items, many of which were repetitive or had already been completed through email. Nevertheless, I completed or initiated every single one by XX/XX/XXXX. \nDuring this time, I was instructed by Counselor XXXX to obtain documentation from my employer confirming a reinstatement or increase in my incomeexplicitly stating that this would significantly improve my affordability. I followed these instructions immediately, going to great lengths, including visiting my job on my day off to gather signatures, scan documents, and provide every piece of information requested. \nHowever, on XX/XX/XXXX, I was informed that the documentation I was directed to obtainand worked extremely hard to providewas suddenly not relevant, needed, or of concern to underwriting or lenders. Not only is this contradictory, but it is also deeply unfair and has caused unnecessary stress and delay. \nI fully understand and respect the need for NACA to verify employment, income, and funds. But ethically and procedurally, those verifications should have been completed at the beginning of my qualification, during the review of my PSL, or at least before allowing me to enter a contract. Instead, I complied with every requirement only to be told that the information was unnecessary. \nI have been transparent and consistent. My job is non-traditional, and I have been employed with the same employer for many years. I earn approximately {$140.00} per hour, and I have documented this extensivelyincluding check stubs dating back to XXXX. I am simply requesting that my verified income and documented higher projected earnings for XXXX be used accurately for my affordability determination. \nAfter submitting all documents, I requested a meeting with my counselor and agent to review next steps, specifically because I am under contract and have inspections scheduled. The meeting was set for XXXXXXXX XXXX ; I emailed at XXXX confirming I would be on. By XXXX XXXX, neither my agent nor I had been contacted, so I called XXXX directly. Her response was, Oh I only have 15 minutes now. This was after I rushed to finalize every document she requested, including the ones later dismissed. \nCurrently, my portal remains outdated. \nMy XXXX  still reflects {$2600.00} from XX/XX/XXXX. \nMy affordability has not been updated in months. \nI have no action items in my portal, despite being told verbally that items were needed, then not needed. \nI have received no guidance regarding the next steps.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-24T00:54:39.000Z","issue":"Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage","sub_product":"Other type of mortgage","zip_code":"94603","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17453106","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America (\"NACA\")","date_received":"2025-11-24T00:41:06.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Delays in the application process"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I followed these instructions immediately, going to great lengths, including visiting my job on my day off to gather signatures, scan documents, and <em>provide</em> every piece of <em>information</em> requested. \nHowever, on XX/XX/XXXX, I was informed that the documentation I was directed to obtainand worked extremely hard to providewas suddenly not <em>relevant</em>, needed, or of concern to underwriting or lenders."]},"sort":[8.323831,"17453106"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9711100","_score":8.091064,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"This response below is in direct response to the recently closed complaint XXXX. I am also including a copy of the letter that CCM provided. \n\nIt is of my opinion that this company is blatantly lying or that their lender has not provided them with the documentation needed nor filled out the correct documentation as Lenders are bound by duty to do. \n\nI am writing to address the confusion surrounding my loan application, the process and the discrepancies in the communication and documentation provided by CCM. Below, I have outlined the key points and included several attachments. It appears that the CCM lender did not adequately approach the loan request as was needed .Firstly, Despite the CCM claim that I never indicated a desire for a construction loan or the purchase of land, this is very inaccurate. In my initial email dated XX/XX/XXXX, attached ( XXXX sentence, XXXX line ), I absolutely did indicate my 1st preference and interest in purchasing land and my belief that USDA Direct would be the best option to purchase land and build a house, with my second choice being the purchase of an existing home. I also mentioned that I had chosen a builder and was having plans drawn up. ( this was before XXXX XXXX told me I was priced out of the market for a stick-built home and could do mfg ). We had a XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, and I applied on XX/XX/XXXX. At no time between XX/XX/XXXX, date of my application to XX/XX/XXXX, date of my denial did XXXX XXXX and I EVER discuss purchasing a home. All of our emails, communication etc were based solelyon the constructionloan of which now I see was never entered into their system until XX/XX/XXXX. The entire process of purchasing land XXXX XXXX was absolutely aware of and the entire process of me moving forward to install utilities out of my own pocket to lower the actual loan amount is very indicative that I was /that we were discussing the construction andnot a home purchase. With this information CCM lender should have very much reasonably known that this entire process was for a construction to perm loan. The lender 's statement of me using my equity to fund the build is also further proof that the lender knew this was a construction loan. It is the lender 's responsibility to input the correct information, timely from the outset of the transaction. It is very obvious over the course of time that this transaction was not for an existing home purchase. I do notice that the XXXX provided by CCM to your office ( DFR ) shows a conventional home purchase application on XX/XX/XXXX but then the construction loan was input on XX/XX/XXXX ... 5 days before I received the disqualification via email. CCM claims that I didn't provide necessary info ( name, income, ss. property address, property value and amt of mtg ) however they had that in XXXX and early XXXX and never requested it from me again. Additionally, that construction loan should have been input in XX/XX/XXXX and not XX/XX/XXXX 7 months later after providing construction documents. This is an abject failure by CCM that with their erroneous ways have egregiously harmed me. Why was the XXXX construction portion of the loan suddenly inputon XX/XX/XXXX and not XXXX when I applied and informed the lender prior to my XX/XX/XXXX application of my desire to do a construction loan??? How come I was never informed they were putting in a secondary loanoption? Were they trying to cover their XXXX at the last second? They assumed to have used my credit scoring on this XX/XX/XXXX XXXX  input but not my documentspreviously provided? How can the lender use parts of a prior set of documents ( name, address, credit score ) and not all of the documents ( construction numbers, mfg info ) to affect a disqualification? CCM has created severe discrepancies within theirown statements and actions. Why did the lender work with me for 7 months on a construction loan if per CCM Corporate I neverindicated a construction loan? The lender/CCM should have reasonablyknown that in me never mentioning an existing home purchase nor my actions indicating a purchase of an existing home that this was indeed a construction to perm loan XXXX To me this appears as if CCM is covering theirXXXX by suddenly putting the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX into place, then subsequently stating I didn't provide documents although this info should have been input in XXXX as well as all the construction documents. Closing on Property on XX/XX/XXXX was due to the conversation that indicated I would easily qualify but then I did not hear from XXXX XXXX and I questioned if I was even qualified. XXXX XXXX, on XX/XX/XXXX assured me I was qualified \" had I just gone through my documents '' of which I never received of which will be evident in the email chains of communication. This is also the same email of myequity funding the build. CCM Corporate office responseletter appears to be very contradictory as to their potential records received in their office as compared to the docs that were sent to XXXX XXXX by myself. I want to clarify that CCM did receive a loan application and numerous documents from me, as shown in the attached screenshots and emails. It is not my fault if their lender input an incorrect set of loan parameters or names. This is an errors and omissions issue at this time.If CCM claims they did not obtain a loan application from me, I must question the purpose of their website and the necessity of attaching all my documents. My emails clearly indicate a loan application, and their portal confirms that I reviewed and submitted an application, with all my personal documents uploaded. I have attached screenshots of the CCM Dashboard and the XX/XX/XXXX email thanking me for applying for a CCM Loan. The questions of theirloan applicationappear to be the same as those found on a XXXX application. Furthermore, if there was not a XXXX application filled out then how was their lender XXXX XXXX able to, as per her written words, \" have me approved '' and cite that \" equity would fund the build? '' Considering the context of the verbiage, this absolutely does not appear to be theoretical statements as claimed by CCM.I am perplexed by the assertion that I did not apply, as I followed the link provided and completed the application process.1. If the form I filled out was not the XXXX XXXX application or form XXXX, why was it not provided during the initial meeting, as is standard practice with other lenders? 2. Why was I told I applied, why were all the otherdocuments necessary if I hadn't applied? 3. Why did the lender talk to my contractors and home retailers if I hadn't applied? 4. Why did the lender choose to work with me for seven months under the guise of a construction loan if I had not applied for a construction loan? Additionally, the portal indicated that I had no further tasks to complete. Generally, borrowers fill out the XXXX or its equivalent, form XXXX as the initial application then again right at closing time to confirm terms of the loan ( CD ) .5. Does CCM use a non-standardized form and non-standards of practice as a standard of their practice? XXXX. Did XXXX XXXX provide CCM Corporate all the documentation to show that I did indeed apply as well as produce documents they claim I didn't produce? 7. Did CCM Corporate receive copies of all correspondence that show the long times in between communications from the lender XXXX XXXX? XXXX. Did CCM corporate not receive the initial email indicating my desire to purchase land and build? It seems that CCM is missing some very important information and is basing their entire response upon XXXX XXXXinaccurate input into a XXXX system, completelyignoring the fact that I indicated a construction loan and that all of our communications were based upon a construction loan. It is the lender 's responsibility to ensure their file is put together accurately by them and that their clients are properly informed, not only about what the lender knows but also about what they should reasonably know. For example, real estate brokers should know how to look up properties in county databases to avoid providing incorrect or incomplete information that could harm a client. The same can be said for homes that should be known to be in a flood plain, even without looking it up. Similarly, XXXX XXXX should have known that I was doing a construction loan considering all of our communication was construction loan based. It was XXXX XXXX 's responsibility to provide me with the necessary documents that I still have not received. It was XXXX XXXX responsibility to accurately reflect my qualification vs disqualification of the loan. She should have known that her statements of being qualified, equity funding the loan could lead me to make poor financial decisions based on her written communications and my presentation of documents in which she requested. She should have also reasonably known that with documentation provided that I was not seeking an existing home mortgage. If CCM did not obtain a specific document required from me, it is the lender 's responsibility to provide the form or inform me of its necessity. I am unaware of any additional documents they needed, as I was never asked to provide anything beyond personal information, initial home details, and site preparation costs. I did not receive any disclosures because the lender refused to send them. Despite repeated requests over seven months, the lender only would state let'stalk numbers but we never talked numbers for the purpose of disqualification or further qualification and I never received the Loan Estimate ( LE ) or any disqualification notice, even after indicating I was qualified in XXXX XXXXThe screenshots attached show emails from the lender indicating that documents pertaining to thehome quote, contract and costs for site prep were sent and that I was qualified.I presented all requested personal information. I logged into the CCM portal to obtain the attached screenshots, showing I was never asked to fill out additional documents beyond what was on their website. Nothing more was requested except the details of the manufactured home and the site preparation estimate, both provided as rough and written forms with the written site prep being a greatly reduced estimate. On XX/XX/XXXX, I started the loan process with my personal bank for land based on a verbal conversation after applying on XX/XX/XXXX, which led me to believe I would have no issues. XXXX XXXX stated I would easily qualify. I closed on the land on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, the lender stated that my equity would fund the build, which was not a theoretical statement. My equity, at 80 %, would have been {$120000.00} based on the written appraisal of the bare land, leaving a loan amount of {$220000.00}, which according to CCM screenshots, I qualified for. The bank stood to gain significant equity in this project. Per the XXXX that CCM provided and the recent screenshot of the portal that I logged into, it appears that {$35000.00} would have been the required down payment, so then how come XXXX XXXX indicated that I would need $ XXXX? Please note that I went throughmy own bank to purchase the land as XXXX XXXX did not think we would be able to purchase it quick enough considering it was a short sale with the listingagency indicating a need for quick closing. In XXXX, I provided a rough estimate of the project costs, which should have been sufficient to trigger the LE or to inform me of my disqualification.The costs included {$110000.00} for the land buyout ( with a current appraised value of {$240000.00} without infrastructure ), {$160000.00} for the home, and {$60000.00} for site preparation, totaling {$340000.00}, excluding bank fees. Lastly, in response to CCM 's letter, I understand that mortgages can be denied after approval. They claim my new vehicle was the issue, but I reduced over {$24000.00} off the build of the loan, significantly more than the {$10000.00} cost of my car thatXXXX XXXX  said that I may have to pay down. Paying down {$10000.00} on my car would not have changed any payment amounts monthly. The new car payment is {$590.00} at 6.35 %, while the interest on the {$24000.00} including PMI, taxes, and insurance at 7.7 %, is approximately {$600.00}, a higher payment scenario than my previous car. Not reducing construction costs, I was still qualified having the {$24000.00} included as per the screenshot. Having reduced this {$24000.00} even in obtaining a higher vehicle payment does actually balance out the credit profile aspect of the new vehicle. For TRID purposes, all required items and more were provided, including the customer 's name, income, social security number, subject address, value and equity of the property, and the mortgage loan amount sought, starting from XXXX when I applied and supplemented with additional numbers in XXXX and XXXX. This information should have triggered a full set of TRID documents. Why the lender didn't use these documents is beyond me, instead they formed a whole new loan and decided I provided no documents... .of which the new loan was not necessary had the lender completed the loan app as a construction loan as in accordance with everything discussed and applied for since XXXXDuring the mortgage inquiry yes costs did change but costs were actually significantly less expensive for the project than when started and there was no contractor for the well as I paid for that out of my pocket thus it was not included in any estimated numbers nor any written estimates. I do not know where they have obtained that information. CCM errs in this part of their letter.\n\nIt is apparent to me that CCM has not done a thorough review of my credit profile or of the communicationtimeline or the items to be includedin the project loan amount. It is apparent to me that CCM never initiated any further credit profile reviews since XXXX. It seems apparent to me that CCM is unable to even determine the initial date of communication of which land was discussed as the preference for a construction loan. It seems apparent to me that CCM has failed to provide TRID docs when many available options presented themselves. It seems apparent to me that CCM is unable to determine the lengthy times I waitedfor answers from XXXX XXXX in many aspects to includebut not limited to a change of definitions in contextual terms ( funding build vs LTV ). It seems apparent to me that XXXX XXXX did make certain promises, very specifically and most importantly, that my equity would fund the build of which is not theoretical, especially when this preceded the fact that she had me qualified. It appearsto me that CCM is confused about my construction loan stating that I never mentioned buying land/doing a const loan when in deed that was included in my very first email to XXXX XXXX XXXX \nThe two constants that did change a credit profile was 1. the purchase of a different vehicle and 2. A higher middle mortgagescore by XXXX points. Prior to that vehicle purchase on XX/XX/XXXX, there was no indication that {$100000.00} cash would ever be needed, quite the opposite when I was told I wouldn't have to bring cash. \n\nWhereas XXXX XXXX had all of the necessary info before and after the XX/XX/XXXX vehicle purchase, please explain to me how a {$22000.00} leased vehicle purchase suddenlyequated to me needing {$100000.00} especiallywith a {$24000.00} reduction in project costs? How did a $ 232 monthly increase in a vehicle equate to {$100000.00}? \nWhy also was this not revealedto me in XXXX or XXXX and waiteduntil XXXX? This {$22000.00} leased vehicle was also only {$4000.00} more on contract than my previous vehicle. Additionally, I could have obtained a raise that would have been {$4000.00} or {$5000.00} addtl per year of which would have covered the vehicle difference in payment of {$230.00}. I kept asking XXXX XXXX if this was all I needed was thisraise and she continued to ignore this question in XXXX. I failto see where suddenly {$100000.00} comes in afterbeing told I needed no cash. It is apparent to methat CCM calculations should have reasonably shown that I was not qualified in the beginning. If I don't qualify in the end after reduction of costs, XXXX point credit score increase and a {$230.00} increase in monthly payments then I should have not reasonably qualified last year. The lender indicated presenting figures to me, but the only figures I received were in an email dated XX/XX/XXXX, and verbally shortly before that. Per TRID rules, I should have received numbers long before XXXX in XXXX. The lender 's verbal claim to me during our last phone call, that she presented figures while standing in line at a XXXX is inaccurate and unprofessional, as it involved discussing my finances in a public place. In reaching out to additional lenders they feel that XXXX XXXX did not do her due diligence and did not have me adequately qualifiedfor anything in XXXX in relation to a construction loan. I would like for CCM to provide documentationthat indicates why XXXX XXXX told me I qualified and I would like documents that show how I qualified in XXXX considering the DTI difference.I hope this detailed account clarifies the issues at hand. I have attached the relevant screenshots and documents for your review. I look forward to a prompt resolution to this matter.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-08-05T22:22:57.000Z","issue":"Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"973XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9711100","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CrossCountry Mortgage LLC","date_received":"2024-08-05T21:58:27.000Z","state":"OR","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Confusing or misleading advertising or marketing"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["If CCM did not obtain a specific document required from me, it is the lender 's responsibility to <em>provide</em> the form or inform me of its necessity. I am unaware of any additional documents they needed, as I was never asked to <em>provide</em> anything beyond personal <em>information</em>, initial home details, and site preparation costs. I did not receive any disclosures because the lender refused to send them."]},"sort":[8.091064,"9711100"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8750152","_score":7.978042,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"Back in the early XXXX  of XXXX I did a campus tour of The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. I was given a campus tour of the cafeteria, the dorms, and the industrial design lab. From the outside everything looked normal. They even did a seated introduction to the programs, telling us about the 90 % job placement and work-study programs that they always had available. The tuition rates posted up on a poster were not even close to what I ended up paying. \nAfter the tour I headed back home to Delaware. Little did I know that the school tour consented to the financial aid offices, XXXX XXXX ( The Dean ) personally calling me and not just once or twice. The financial aid offices and the student advisors called me three to four times a week for five months until I finally consented and talked my parents into attempting to cosign for me. I had no credit and was told after running my credit that I would not be able to get a loan by myself. That is when Sallie Mae/Navient was pushed on to us. No other loan program was offered, it always seemed to be Navient that made it work. I was in the student financing office every three months for the three and a half years I was there. It was the most stressful process ever. We were applying for loans so often that my mother could no longer qualify to co-sign for me to finish school. My dads girlfriend at the time decided to help me for one semester ( Three Months ) and I was back in the office again trying to figure it out. They hounded me daily to come up with financing. At one point during my 3.5-year term I somehow managed to get a loan all by myself without signing any documents or being made aware that I was on the loan without a co-signer. I never made over {$10.00} an hour consistently the whole time I was in school. How I qualified for a loan by myself with barely any income and no credit does not make any sense. \nI went to XXXX XXXX to attempt to get a work study to find out that there was not any available. I was in the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  and with all the XXXX  companies in the area they had nothing available for me. With no work studies available I requested information on available jobs that they may have been aware of or that I could apply for that was within my scope of work. The lady told me that at this time there were no XXXX XXXX opportunities, but she has heard that XXXX was hiring down the street and I should go ask them. I couldnt believe it. The school that told me that they had a 90 % job placement rating and work study programs available at all times had nothing for me but to check out the XXXX down the street. \nBy this time I was struggling financially, I had to go in to my financial advisor again to once again try to get a loan with a co-signer only to find out I had completely tapped out my Moms credit, My dads girlfriends credit and was in no position to be able to get one by myself and was eventually kicked out of school due to funding issues. I had managed to get 3.5 years in with XXXX credit and could not finish my degree. I was at the top of my class, on the deans list and honor society and I had nothing to show for it. I tried to hit the ground running and get a job but after the six-month mark when the student loans were not allowed to be charged, I was required to pay {$1500.00} a month in eleven separate loans at 13-17 % interest rate back. I hit rock bottom. I lost my apartment, I was homeless, my credit was destroyed and the only thing I could do was defer my loans with the accrual of interest rate over time. By XXXX I was over XXXX XXXX dollars in debt, with no home of my own, no car and a job that I was making {$16.00} an hour at. But Navient and Sallie who gave me these loans could have cared less. That hunted me, they called my family, my friends, anyone they could contact that could contact me. They called me 5 times a day. \nI fell into XXXX. Ended up having to take XXXX to keep my head up from all the negative thoughts that were running through my mind. I could not get an apartment because my credit was destroyed, I couldnt get a loan for a car, I was scared to get into a committed relationship due the how bad off I was financially and worst of all I was couch surfing. I had no home. This school was a fraud that prayed on me from the beginning. They sold me big dreams, easy payback schemes and the ease of getting loans and jobs that would make it all worth it in the end. That did not happen. And for the longest time I struggled emotionally and mentally to recover who I was. Navient/Sallie Mae played a big part in all of this. The XXXX XXXX and Navient/Sallie Mae worked together to get every once of money out of me and my family that they could. \nSo, when I say this CFPB complaint is due to predatory lending, high pressure sales tactics or recruiting. That is just the small part of it that it all started with. There is also the problems with the interest rates that are criminal. The loan opened without my knowledge. The confusing and misleading advertising and the constant issues with financial aid. It should not be this hard to get a solid education. \nWith all that being said I Submitted a Borrowers Defense Application on XX/XX/XXXX, and received confirmation from the Department of Education on XX/XX/XXXX. After researching my prior defense application, I found out my application was lost so I resubmitted my defense on XX/XX/XXXX. Which was part of the XXXX XXXX that happened. XX/XX/XXXX, I made a request for reconsideration. Finally, after all of that time and the accrual of additional stress and interest rate burden the Defense to Repayment was approved. \nWhich was approved XX/XX/XXXX. \nBorrower Defense Application # : XXXX Borrower Defense Application School : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( The ) Pursuant to the Sweet settlement, the Department of Education will do the following : -Discharge your federal student loan ( s ) taken out for your enrollment in the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The ) ( \" Relevant Federal Student Loan ( s ) '' ) ; -Provide a refund for any payments made to the Department of Education on your Relevant Federal Student Loan ( s ), including Relevant Federal Student Loan debt that you previously paid off ; and -Delete the credit report tradeline associated with the discharged loan ( s ). \nIn addition : I have submitted consumer complaints to both Delaware and Maryland Attorney Generals, in which states I have lived after being rejected from attending the XXXX XXXX. \nI have written my congressmen, The Honorable Dutch Ruppersberger and The Honorable XXXX XXXX I am apart of : The Project on Predatory Student Lending and the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-04-12T03:29:12.000Z","issue":"Getting a loan","sub_product":"Private student loan","zip_code":"210XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8750152","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Navient Solutions, LLC.","date_received":"2024-04-12T01:47:42.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"High pressure sales tactics or recruiting"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Borrower Defense Application # : XXXX Borrower Defense Application School : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( The ) Pursuant to the Sweet settlement, the Department of Education will do the following : -Discharge your federal student loan ( s ) taken out for your enrollment in the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The ) ( \" <em>Relevant</em> Federal Student Loan ( s ) '' ) ; -<em>Provide</em> a refund for any payments made to the Department of Education on your <em>Relevant</em> Federal Student Loan ( s ), including <em>Relevant</em> Federal"]},"sort":[7.978042,"8750152"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9643865","_score":6.357446,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"LAST FILE ATTACHMENT CONTAINS THIS INFO EASIER TO READ My husband XXXX and I applied for a Construction/Permanent loan with Waterstone Mortgage Company ( WMC or Waterstone ) in XXXX, XXXX, and were accepted. We have complaints about our experiences with WMC that cost us over {$20000.00}.\n\nCOMPLAINTS We have two complaints about Waterstone Mortgage Company ( WMC ), two situations that WMC was responsible for, which cost us about $ XXXX each. \n\n1. WMC created a fraudulent a rate lock agreement ( RLA ), and extorted interest rate lock extension fees from us that were not owed, and were based on the fraudulent RLA. \nWe were forced to pay their fraudulent rate lock agreement fees against our will, when a lien was placed on our home. If we didnt pay the fees, we would not have been able to get our home completed for an indefinite period.\n\no We believe these actions by Waterstone Mortgage Company were a conspiracy to commit fraud and criminal extortion.\n\n2. WMC unreasonably withheld closing our construction loan without contractual reasons, and it cost us over $ XXXX. This situation occurred before the fraudulent rate lock agreement issue. The delay resulted in us having to pay a price increase of {$9800.00}.\n\no We believe what WMC did to delay our loan from closing timely was a breach of contract. \n\nIn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX  notified us that they purchased our mortgage loan from WMC. We contacted XXXX XXXX  about our complaints. They were escalated to their fraud department to investigate. They took our information and documentation in XX/XX/XXXX. Unfortunately, after we waited patiently for a long time to learn the results of their investigation, they would not tell us anything. We have no idea if they contacted WMC, or not. It took us a while to put all this documentation together in fewer pages than the hundreds we sent XXXX XXXX \n\nNOTE : When I - me- my are used, I am referring to myself [ XXXX XXXX ]. When we - us - our are used, I am referring to both my husband [ XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ] and myself. I am the one who took care of this aspect of building our home. \n\nLOAN DATES & FACTS XX/XX/XXXX : We signed a Disclosure Package that included a Rate Float/Lock Agreement ( RLA ). \nWe chose to FLOAT the interest rate on the RLA.\n\nFLOAT was already electronically checked ( not a hand-written checkmark ) when we came in to wet sign the documents, because our loan officer advised against locking it yet. \nOur intent for floating the interest rate on XX/XX/XXXX was to wait to lock it until right before closing. We didnt want the loan terms to expire before the construction was complete. \nThe LOCK option had 4.25 % for the interest rate, which at the time was higher than a normal home loan because construction loans tend to be higher. \no XXXX XXXX fixed mortgage rates in XX/XX/XXXX were about 3.1 %, so we didnt want to lock at 4.25 %. \no Given both our credit scores were in the mid to low XXXX, we would have received the best interest rates for a XXXX fixed mortgage. \nXX/XX/XXXX : We signed a Closing Disclosure for our construction/permanent loan. \nBoth the Construction Closing Disclosure and Refinanced Closing Disclosure documents show a fixed interest rate of 4.25 % for the one-year term of the Construction loan and the XXXX term of the Refinanced loan it would modify to when construction was complete. \nBOTH Loan Terms, in the Can this amount increase during closing? columns said NO, so we thought this is how we locked in the interest rate for both loans.\n\nThere was no discussion about interest rate prior to closing, so we assumed WMC dictated the interest rate and we trusted WMC knew what they were doing and were honest about what the XXXX fixed rate was. \no Our hind sight research shows the average interest rates for XXXX fixed mortgages was about 3.36 % in XX/XX/XXXX, which seems like 4.25 % was a mistake on the Closing Documents. \no Our hind sight thinks it is odd that the interest rate of 4.25 % was identical to the interest rate [ and relevant information ] listed in the LOCK option we didnt choose on XX/XX/XXXX. \no Our hind sight guess is that perhaps our loan officer thought we locked the interest rate on XX/XX/XXXX, and proceeded with our Closing Disclosure and Closing Documents accordingly. \no It seems we might have been cheated out of the current interest rate on XX/XX/XXXX that was much lower than 4.25 %. \nXX/XX/XXXX : We closed on our construction/permanent loan. \nBasically, the same as the Closing Disclosure, with minor differences in final amounts for closing costs. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Closed on Loan Modification, after our house was completed and final draws processed, in a rush after WMC stopped processing draws due to a false default claim, which caused a pause in construction. \nWe were forced to pay additional false rate lock extension fees for the extra time it took for final draw to be completed, until we closed. \n\nCOMPLAINT 1 : SUMMARY WMC created a fraudulent a rate lock agreement ( RLA ) seven ( 7 ) months AFTER the date they claimed we locked the rate and they provided written confirmation. WMC extorted interest rate lock extension fees from us, based on the fraudulent RLA.\n\nWe are guessing WMC did this to cover for mistake ( s ) made on the interest rate when we closed.\n\nWMC put us in a situation where we were forced to pay their fraudulent rate lock agreement fees against our will, or we would not be able to get our home completed for an indefinite period and a lien could have been placed on our home, until we paid them.\n\nWMC claimed : We locked an interest rate by phone on XX/XX/XXXX ( 2 days after we checked XXXX ) that they claimed expired on XX/XX/XXXX. \no There are no phone records to support WMCs claim, and our loan officer typically emailed. \nThey provided written confirmation of this interest rate lock on XX/XX/XXXX via email. WMC has yet to provide documentation it was sent to us and received by us. \nThis information trickled out from XXXX, XXXX to XXXX, XXXX, but WMC would not provide documentation.\n\nWMC demanded : We pay them rate lock extension fees, which we would not pay without the documentation they claimed to have. \nWMC forced us to pay rate lock extension fees, after months ( since XX/XX/XXXX ) of us requesting documentation and after letters from our attorney asking them to provide it. \nWe did not receive the only documentation WMC was ever going to provide us, until after we wired the funds. \nAFTER paying the fees, is when we were provided their \" written confirmation '' that turned out to be a fraudulent, unsigned, XXXX Rate XXXX/Lock agreement PDF document whose properties show it was created on XX/XX/XXXX by their XXXX  Customer Relations Manager. This RLA was created seven ( 7 ) months after WMC claimed they provided it to us via email.\n\nWMC coerced/squeezed us by doing the following : WMC claimed we were in default because we would not pay their unjustified interest rate extension fees, and instructing their third part draw XXXX XXXX XXXX to stop processing draws as of XX/XX/XXXX, after only processing one draw. \nEventually our builder had to stop building when the house was almost done. \nXX/XX/XXXX we were given a XXXX XXXX Notice of Lien on our property, because WMC wasnt processing or paying our builders requests for draws.\n\nWMC stopped processing draws from us for our site development costs, so we werent able to access over {$30000.00} of contingency funds we paid WMC out-of-pocket at closing, which meant we had to use up our savings to complete our site development responsibilities to complete our house.\n\nWe had so little funds left, our son-in-law had to wire the extortion funds to WMC for us. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX we signed XX/XX/XXXX : On page XXXX, under the XXXX  option we chose : o It states, points which shall apply on your loan in the first paragraph when explaining advising WMC of our election to lock the rate. There were no such fees incorporated into our loan when closing on XX/XX/XXXX, and there is no record of us paying fees to lock the interest rate. \nFraudulent Rate XXXX/Lock Agreement : o On page XXXX, under the Lock information continued, it lists Discount Points : {$1100.00} but if the fraudulent RLA was real, there would be a record of us paying the fees or it being incorporated into the loan, and there isnt evidence of us paying those fees. \nOn page XXXX of the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX, it states we must lock the interest rate prior to closing, which we thought occurred when we signed the Closing Declaration on XX/XX/XXXX. \nOn page XXXX it also states that the rate lock period ( inclusive of the Rate Lock Date and the XXXX XXXX XXXX ) must be long enough to cover the time necessary to complete the construction and satisfy all necessary steps to modify into the permanent loan. \no For the same reason WMC checked XXXX  for us, is why they knew it would not be long enough to lock it on XX/XX/XXXX, as WMC many months later claims we did. [ But we didnt. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX AZ XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Customer Relations Manager, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and WMCs outside counsel XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX were involved in our second complaint conspiracy to commit fraud and criminal extortion. \n\nCOMPLAINT XXXX : SUMMARY It took almost 6 months to close the construction loan we applied for with Waterstone, for which we signed a XXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXX. It closed in a rush on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nWe believe what WMC did to delay our loan from closing timely was a breach of contract. Their breach of contract resulted in us having to pay a price increase of {$9800.00} that we otherwise would not have had to pay. \n\nWMCs XXXX XXXX our Loan XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX AZ office were involved in this breach of contract. \n\nAs early as XXXX we were discussing a closing date. We continually requested to close our construction loan before our price protection deadline of XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nWMC arbitrarily changed the requirements to close, to ones that were not disclosed in the Disclosure Package contract we signed, and not requested from the underwriters. \nThe Discloser Package contract doesnt say requirements could be added by WMC at their discretion. \nWaterstone delayed and refused to close our loan when we asked them to, because the loan officers who were involved made up their own requirements. \nFor whatever reasons they did this, it was not for reasons that were in our best interest. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX I emailed XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX to complain about the cost to us for WMC taking almost 6 months to close our construction loan. This was quite contrary to page XXXX of their Disclosure Package that says, Waterstone Mortgage is committed to closing your loan on time. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX XXXX of Waterstones reasons for delaying moving forward with closing our loan are in XXXX XXXX response. XXXX of his responses relevant to this complaint are below : XXXX. XXXX of the conditions clearly communicated was we would not close the loan until you received permits. We did not receive your proof of permits until XX/XX/XXXX. \no XXXX XX/XX/XXXX notes below, explaining this was not true. XX/XX/XXXX is when we provided the LAST update ; many before that. \no The contractual Disclosure Package we signed on XX/XX/XXXX has XXXX bullets that read Permits ( or status of permits ) XXXX bullet about the permit is also on page XXXX, under Construction Underwriting Process, under the statement The Items required for submission to Construction Underwriting are as follows : Another bullet is found under the Project Review Process, which applies to the project reviews done by WMCs third-party draw administrator. This process comes after closing. \no I emailed XXXX XXXX regular permit status and site development updates, beginning when I told him the plans were submitted on XX/XX/XXXX, and on XX/XX/XXXX a couple of days after the initial review was completed on XX/XX/XXXX. \no On XX/XX/XXXX I provided a link to the public records. All he had to do was use the link I provided to periodically check, but I still continually emailed updates. XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX o NOTE : WMC never asked for the permit document prior to closing, nor at any time afterward. It was not a condition from the underwriters. \n\nXXXX. Your price disputes with XXXX impacted our ability to have a fixed purchase price. \no WMC already had a fixed purchase price that was not going to change for a potential price increase. It was a made-up condition. A home construction project commonly has change orders throughout the build. It changes the costs, but not the purchase price.\n\no Page 4 of Disclosure Package, a bullet under Construction Underwriting Process, required a Copy of signed construction contract between borrower and builder/contractor. This document had been provided early in the loan process. \no Another bullet on page XXXX reads Builder/contractors Cost Breakdown and Draw Schedule. The draw schedule came with the accepted XXXX XXXX order we provided WMC. It also included the cost breakdown of the site development tasks we were responsible for. \nThe Cost Breakdown was emailed to XXXX XXXX by XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX XXXX could have requested this much sooner. \no Page XXXX of Disclosure Package, Additional Information : provides for Cost Overruns and Change Order Policy. Both sections provide for additional expenses from the builder that would be taken care of without changing the fixed purchase price. The fixed price doesnt change. \no XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX that was included in our XXXX XXXX accepted order was provided to WMC very early in the loan process. It explains in their Disclosures & Addendums section, under XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX how a potential price increase would be paid. \n\nXXXX XXXX recommends that you budget for contingency funds to pay for potential price increases as well as costs associated with your owner responsibilities. This can be in the form of cash savings or included in your loan with your lender. \n\nWe included over $ XXXX cash above closing costs and the cost of the home, in our loan. This was to cover for estimated site development costs not incurred nor paid yet, and anything else such as a price increase, if we closed prior to knowing whether we would incur a price increase. \nWe continually told XXXX XXXX that if we had to pay a price increase, we would use our savings, but there were also the cash contingency funds that were required to be paid at closing. WMC had our most recent bank records to know we had the money in our accounts to pay for it from our savings. \nXXXX XXXX recently worked for XXXX XXXX and should have known a potential price increase would not affect the fixed purchase price that was already provided to WMC. \no We had already paid $ XXXX cash for our lot, over half of the $ XXXX we were financing for a project appraised at $ XXXX. The lot equity in itself gave WMC value protection against a price increase.\n\no The underwriters never gave the condition that WMC needed to know if we would have to pay a price increase before we could close. XXXX XXXX made-up the claim that we needed a fixed purchase price to move forward to closing. \no We paid our price increase as a change order on XX/XX/XXXX. The change order would be added into OUR costs of our home, but would not be added to XXXX XXXX purchase price. It was already fixed. \no The facts seem like the real reason XXXX XXXX was waiting to close is because he wanted to incorporate our price increase into our loan ; so much so that he contacted XXXX XXXX without our permission to ask about it. We know this from an XX/XX/XXXX email XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX sent us telling us that our bank [ lender ] called her wanting to wrap it into our loan, even though we already told XXXX XXXX so many times that we would pay it out of pocket. \n[ quote from XXXX XXXX email ; provided in supporting documents ] You might recall that your bank [ lender ] reached out to me a few weeks ago and were ready to wrap it in, however, they needed the final signed copy. In order to obtain an XXXX XXXX signature and to get a final copy, I would need to collect payment. Once I receive payment and a fully signed change order, I can close it out and send you and the bank the final copy. From there, you could request a reimbursement in the form of a draw from your bank. XXXX can not request this check for you, as this would come out of your soft costs and not a part of our draw schedule. [ We were unaware of XXXX XXXX reaching out to her. We were not copied on his communication. ] WMC unnecessarily waiting to see if we would incur a price increase is what CAUSED the {$9800.00} price increase from our builder. \n\nNeither the permit condition nor waiting for a price increase were conditions from the underwriters, nor are they supported by the XX/XX/XXXX Disclosure Package contract we signed in good faith and expected Waterstone to honor in good faith. Those XXXX conditions were conditions from XXXX XXXX, possibly driven by XXXX XXXX. \n\nThe XXXX XXXX we signed on XX/XX/XXXX is a legally binding contract. Therefore, we believe the actions Waterstone Mortgage Company took to delay closing our loan, none of which were disclosed nor were they conditions of the underwriters, were a breach of contract.\n\nIf the Underwriters needed to have a copy of the permit, we would have had to produce it prior to closing, which we didnt and to this day was never asked for by WMC underwriters nor anyone. \nPage XXXX of their XXXX XXXX we signed on XX/XX/XXXX says, Waterstone Mortgage is committed to closing your loan on time. Yet for all the months we requested to get our loan closed they withheld closing on time ( almost six months ), for reasons not substantiated by their Disclosure Package.\n\nAdditional time delays occurred that were a result of our loan officer either not preparing ahead for what was needed to close the loan in a timely manner, or being too inexperienced to know what would be needed.\n\nDuring the preventable rush to close is when we believe mistakes were made by XXXX XXXX, and we were made to cover and pay for leading into complaint XXXX. \n\nThe XXXX XXXX we signed on XX/XX/XXXX is a legally binding contract. Therefore, we believe the actions Waterstone Mortgage Company took to delay closing our loan, none of which were disclosed nor were they conditions of the underwriters, were a breach of contract. \nIf the Underwriters needed to have a copy of the permit, we would have had to produce it prior to closing, which we didnt and to this day was never asked for by WMC underwriters nor anyone. \nPage XXXX of their XXXX XXXX we signed on XX/XX/XXXX says, Waterstone Mortgage is committed to closing your loan on time. Yet for all the months we requested to get our loan closed they withheld closing on time ( almost six months ), for reasons not substantiated by their Disclosure Package. \n\nAdditional time delays occurred that were a result of our loan officer either not preparing ahead for what was needed to close the loan in a timely manner, or being too inexperienced to know what would be needed. \n\nDuring the preventable rush to close is when we believe mistakes were made by XXXX XXXX, and we were made to cover and pay for leading into complaint XXXX.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-07-30T04:00:21.000Z","issue":"Closing on a mortgage","sub_product":"Other type of mortgage","zip_code":"857XX","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9643865","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WATERSTONE MORTGAGE CORPORATION","date_received":"2024-07-30T03:19:06.000Z","state":"AZ","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Delays with the closing process"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["WMC has yet to <em>provide</em> documentation it was sent to us and received by us. \nThis <em>information</em> trickled out from XXXX, XXXX to XXXX, XXXX, but WMC would not <em>provide</em> documentation.\n\nWMC demanded : We pay them rate lock extension fees, which we would not pay without the documentation they claimed to have. \nWMC forced us to pay rate lock extension fees, after months ( since XX/XX/XXXX ) of us requesting documentation and after letters from our attorney asking them to <em>provide</em> it."]},"sort":[6.357446,"9643865"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6781642","_score":5.0650034,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Debt Collector : Altitude Community Law ; Debt Amount : {$1400.00} ( consisting of {$200.00} in disputed fines, {$920.00} in Debt Collector fees related to these disputed fines and {$320.00} in property lien, late and other fees also related to these disputed fines ) ; Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( HOA ) ; Creditor Board President : XXXX XXXX ; Creditor XXXX : The Creditor will not disclose the current members of the XXXX XXXX XXXX for the HOA ; XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX, XXXX ; XXXX Community Manager : XXXX XXXX ; XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX ; Complainant XXXX XXXX : Former Chairman and member of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX HOA for over 10 years ; Complainant XXXX XXXX : Former volunteer heavily involved in the Creditors consolidation of filings and of the current Protective Covenants for the Creditor HOA ; Debt Collector Partner : XXXX XXXX of Altitude Community Law ( formerly XXXX XXXX of XXXXXXXX XXXX ) advised Complainants and the Creditor regarding the Creditors covenant consolidation and ACC function ; Debt Collector Litigation Partner : XXXX XXXX of Altitude Community Law threatened us with harassment if we continued to contact the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ; Let us begin by notifying the authorities of what we learned about the current reputation of the Debt Collector. On XX/XX/XXXX at XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX described Altitude Community Law as a shakedown law firm that he is very familiar with pulling scams on homeowners in HOAs. He made these statements during his well-known, long-running consumer advocate radio broadcast called The XXXX XXXX airing on station XXXX XXXX. We do not want other homeowners in our HOA to be mistreated as we have been. We have been seeking for the XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the Debt Collector to act in a manner that is both legally compliant and representative of homeowners. As a first step, the Creditor finally acknowledged in Board of Directors Meeting Minutes for XX/XX/XXXX that its policies in areas we have been disputing are not in compliance with current Colorado state statutes governing HOAs, such as HB22-1137. This Debt Amount would not have been incurred if the Creditor and Debt Collector had acted in a legally compliant, ethical manner. \n\nThe Debt Collector and Creditor extracted a payment from us of {$1400.00} in disputed charges paid under protest. We sent a check for this amount by courier on XX/XX/XXXX to stop the Debt Collector from acting on its threat of creating more debt charged to our account and to expedite release of a lien the Creditor had filed against our home. The Debt Collector, the Creditor Board President and the XXXX XXXX XXXX were first advised by us in writing on XX/XX/XXXX that the Creditors unwarranted lien was interfering with a financial transaction. The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX filed this lien on our home one day BEFORE the date of a letter from them reporting that we had 30 days before a lien would happen. Most egregious, that lien was filed while we were waiting for a response from the XXXX XXXX XXXX Accounts XXXX ( which never happened ) to their instructions ( which we followed ) to notify them if we disputed the validity of the debt. We have been denied access to any fair two-way dispute resolution process. We have written documents indicating the Debt Collector would have known of, and participated in, this situation before it processed our payment of the Debt Amount we made under protest. \n\nWhen we submitted full payment of our disputed account balance by the deadline stated in the Debt Collectors validation notice, our communications to the Debt Collector, XXXX XXXX XXXX Community Manager & Accounts Receivable and Creditor Board President included these unambiguous statements : Email dated XX/XX/XXXX : We ask that Altitude Community Law stop sending us information that shows you owe the debt. \nLetter dated XX/XX/XXXX : We ask Altitude Community Law to refrain from sending us any more information that shows you owe the debt. \n\nIn defiance of our demand to stop contacting us and AFTER receiving payment in full on our disputed account balance, the Debt Collector immediately resumed sending us unproductive troubling letters, two dated XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX of these letters threatens that we incurred additional legal services that would create more debt on our account. In it the Debt Collector falsely accused us of outstanding covenant violations related to the Debt Amount that do not exist and stated a compliance date in the past year. The other letter was sent to collect and justify a small part of the Debt Amount ( that had already been paid as of the date of the letter ) and to submit a severely delinquent ( and incorrect ) itemization of the Debt Amount. The Debt Collectors justification for the debt in this letter, consistent with all of its prior communications, fails to address any of the points of dispute that actually caused the Debt Amount. HOA records contain extensive written communications from us, mostly backed up by Certified Return Receipt mailings, reporting these disputes and requesting access to a fair two-way dispute resolution process. \n\nThe Community Manager denied our request for a Board hearing on these erroneous Debt Collector letters dated XX/XX/XXXX ( that threatened us with additional costs ) consistent with the Creditors denial or disregard of all our previous dispute resolution requests. The Creditor Board President did not respond to our request for his confirmation that we would not be charged for these letters ; he has not responded to any of our communications. Additional compelling support is submitted with this complaints documentation as to why we want both of these erroneous letters to be retracted by the Debt Collector.\n\nThe Debt Collector did not submit an itemization of the current amount of the debt of {$1400.00} with its validation notice to us dated XX/XX/XXXX. They waited until after the XXXX XXXX XXXX Accounts Receivable had complied with our request to post the missing Debt Amount detail to our online HOA account and after they received our check payment on XX/XX/XXXX. We did not receive an itemization of the Debt Amount from the Debt Collector until XX/XX/XXXX. The Debt Collector prepared an ( incorrect ) itemization of the debt as an enclosure to one of the legal letters dated XX/XX/XXXX. This letter is postmarked XX/XX/XXXX. The Debt Collector and Creditor should not be allowed to charge us for this severely delinquent, meaningless communication.\n\nParticularly troubling is whether it is legal and/or ethical for a Debt Collector to also act as a major cause and creator of the debt it is collecting. This Debt Collector also serves as advising attorney to the Creditor HOA. The Debt Collector assisted the Creditor in denying us access to impartial covenant-compliant XXXXXXXX XXXX and to fair dispute resolution alternatives. Before the disputed fines and fees thereon comprising the Debt Amount began, a Debt Collector Litigation Partner at Altitude Community Law unfairly threatened us with a harassment action if we continued to contact the Creditor as we had been to resolve our disputes and to agree on our mitigating landscaping changes. This suppression tactic severely delayed and complicated our involuntary, expensive, extensive landscaping project ( which is still unfinished ) to mitigate adverse HOA community changes permitted by the Creditor. HOA records document that the effect of this Debt Collector/Creditor tactic was to dissuade us from requesting a board hearing when the first disputed fine leading to the Debt Amount began. We waited until a new Creditor Board President was elected. He has not threatened us with harassment for seeking dispute resolution required of the Creditor. His tactic instead is to ignore any communication from us.\n\nIn lieu of participating in any of our dispute resolution requests, the Debt Collector sent us unwanted letters and emails that exacerbated the disputes due to errors, omissions, threats and wasteful legal costs. The Debt Collector would not acknowledge legal advice previously provided by the above named Debt Collector Partner directly to us ( in our respective former capacities volunteering for the HOA ) and codified by her in our HOAs Protective Covenants regarding the Creditor HOAs Architectural Control Committee. Our reliance on that codified legal opinion was another key cause of the Debt Amount. Neither the Debt Collector nor the Creditor would honor compliance deadlines they established, which resulted in the first disputed Debt Collector letter charge of {$580.00} in the Debt Amount, additional disputed Debt Amount charges and the pending Debt Collector letter charges ( referred to in # 2 above ). Both of these parties refused our requests for an inspection of the damages to our property and its enjoyment. The Debt Collector also may have reason to know the Creditor Board President and Community Manager refuse to respond to our requests for HOA records and for other information critical to our reparative landscaping plan decisions.\n\nIt is troubling that, after receiving fees for blocking access to our homeowner and other rights, the Creditor states in HOA minutes that the Debt Collector will be paid to update our HOAs obsolete policies that caused the Debt Amount. Based on language in a Debt Collector letter to us, we are also concerned that the Debt Collector may have presumed to act as an Impartial Decision Maker. This in effect denies us any fair dispute resolution option in this matter. In addition, the Creditor HOA and Altitude Community Law have kept the identity of the Impartial Decision Maker anonymous, thereby eliminating our ability to evaluate the impartiality of said Impartial Decision Maker. \n\nWe can provide documentation of these and additional issues related to conduct of the Debt Collector and Creditor if relevant to any agencies handling this complaint.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-04-14T19:18:05.000Z","issue":"Threatened to contact someone or share information improperly","sub_product":"Other debt","zip_code":"80111","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6781642","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Altitude Community Law P.C.","date_received":"2023-04-01T02:12:43.000Z","state":"CO","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Contacted you after you asked them to stop"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["We can <em>provide</em> documentation of these and additional issues related to conduct of the Debt Collector and Creditor if <em>relevant</em> to any agencies handling this complaint."],"issue":["Threatened to contact someone or share <em>information</em> improperly"]},"sort":[5.0650034,"6781642"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5083112","_score":4.78016,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom It May Concern : I have been involved in a protracted legal battle with US Bancorp for almost ten years, over their mishandling of multiple attempts to foreclose on a particular property, described below, and I believe I have been treated unfairly in large part due to their incompetence and unwillingness to allow me to communicate with anyone in a position of authority. I will do my best to describe what I consider to be an abuse of corporate power. \n\nMy mother died on XX/XX/XXXX, with an outstanding US Bank loan. She had purchased a condominium in XXXX, in her own name and that of a revocable trust. In XXXX, she transferred the title into a Personal Residence Trust. I became the successor trustee for the Personal Residence Trust on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nWhen my mother transferred the title to the condominium into the Personal Residence Trust, she retained personal responsibility for the loan. The trust has no assets other than the condo, which was a liability at the time of her death. The amount owed on the loan at that time was around {$610000.00}. The condo was appraised at {$530000.00} as of XX/XX/XXXX although I was advised by multiple real estate agents that it would never sell for that much. \n\nI spent the next 15 months calling US Bank almost every day. I was told repeatedly that the bank was only authorized to talk to my mother, who was deceased. Until XX/XX/XXXX I continued to pay the mortgage although the trust had no financial responsibility to do so. I consulted various professionals and an attorney finally suggested that the bank might speak with me if I stopped paying the mortgage, which I did in XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, the bank accelerated the loan. On XX/XX/XXXX, I sent them a letter telling them that my mother was deceased, that no probate or administration of her estate was planned, and that her estate was without funds to pay off the loan. I included a death certificate. \n\nIn XX/XX/XXXX, the bank finally agreed to talk to me. Per their request for details, I sent a letter enclosing another copy of the death certificate along with the trust agreement and the document appointing me as successor trustee. In this letter, I informed US Bank that several of my siblings and I might be interested in purchasing the property or taking on the loan if it could be modified to an amount commensurate with the current value of the property. We felt that this might be the fastest route to a resolution. \n\nIn XX/XX/XXXX, I attended the first of several Foreclosure Avoidance Mediations. After consulting with experts, it had become even more clear that purchasing the property would be the easiest solution to the problem. I put together an offer that considered the value of the condo at that time, the projected costs for the bank to foreclose and subsequently deal with the condo until it could be sold, as well as the decreased value of selling a bank-owned property. At that time, the condo was in good condition as far as I knew. \n\nDespite the federal requirement that someone with decision-making authority be present at the mediation, no one was. The attorney representing US Bank thought my offer was reasonable and we agreed to meet again in a month after she presented it to her client. At the follow up meeting I was told that the bank did not have a mechanism for accepting an offer from me because I was not the borrower. I accepted that decision and left the meeting thinking that foreclosure would proceed easily. I asked the attorney if there was any way to speed things along and was told that the bank needed to go through the entire process, which would probably take between nine and twelve months. \n\nWhat followed was a series of long delays. US Bank first attempted to foreclose in late summer XXXX, erroneously naming me, in my personal capacity, on the lawsuit, forcing me to hire an attorney. I believe that error was corrected but the bank then failed to prosecute the case in a timely fashion and the court dismissed everyone except for me, in my capacity as trustee, because the initial error had required me to file a response. \n\nIn XX/XX/XXXX toxic mold was discovered in the condo, related to construction defects that had been known to the HOA and the previous owner but never disclosed to my mother. I had been staying in the condo up to that point, so that I could afford to pay the HOA dues, but I was forced to move out due to the health hazard. \n\nThe first foreclosure trial took place in XX/XX/XXXX. Before the trial, my attorney asked the bank to put the case in abatement because of the mold issues and because the case was not ready for trial as no proper party was named. He also asked if the bank would be willing to attend a global mediation with the HOA to resolve all the issues at once. The bank declined both requests and lost the case at trial. The Judge explained in her decision that the bank had not listed anyone who owed them money and that they needed to open probate. \n\nMy attorney attempted to reach the US bank attorney who had been handling the case up to that point to work out the terms. She did not respond to multiple emails and phone calls. The court issued a supplemental judgement, awarding attorney fees and costs to me, on XX/XX/XXXX. Despite many requests for payment and filing a writ of execution, the bank did not pay in a timely fashion. \n\nThe HOA refused to fix the exterior defects that were causing water intrusion and mold and I was forced to file a lawsuit against them. It took two years to reach a settlement. In XX/XX/XXXX, a refrigerator leak resulted in additional water damage to the kitchen and an adjacent closet. This was reported to US Bank, but they never followed up. I finally paid for remediation, which included demolition of the kitchen and closet, when I started to fear that the damage might otherwise become irreversible. With the outcome of the unit still under dispute, it has not been in my interest to pay for reconstruction and the unit remains uninhabitable. \n\nDuring remediation of the kitchen damage, the contractor noted other areas concerning for water intrusion and another mold inspection was performed. Contractors have also pointed out areas of exterior wet and dry rot while performing estimates. The bank, as well as the HOA, were made aware of these issues and chose to ignore them. \n\nAnother Foreclosure Avoidance mediation hearing was under discussion starting in late XXXX. It was my understanding that the bank was required to attend and obtain a certificate but that I was not. However, I had never been able to talk to a bank representative and thought it might be my only opportunity. \n\nAt the first meeting of this second foreclosure avoidance mediation, held in XX/XX/XXXX, a new bank attorney arrived with no history of the condo whatsoever. He had not been told that the bank had already lost one foreclosure lawsuit or anything about the current condition of the condo. I appeared with an attorney who pointed out that I was the only creditor in the room since I had no personal responsibility for my mothers loan, but at that time the bank owed me a substantial amount of money in attorney fees. \n\nAgain, there was no US bank representative present at the mediation, despite federal requirements. I made an offer to purchase the loan for the current value of the condominium. It was decided that, because of the complexities of the case, negotiations should proceed outside of the mediation environment. I requested a follow up meeting because I was afraid it would otherwise drag on forever. One was scheduled for a couple of months later but US Bank kept requesting delays and it didnt take place until XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nAs discussed in the mediation, I presented a formal offer to purchase the loan, considering that the housing market had changed but that the condo was no longer habitable. Although the terms had been discussed at the mediation, and the US Bank attorney felt they were reasonable, soon after the mediation US Bank appointed a different attorney for the interim. We never received a response and did not see the attorney who had been present at the XX/XX/XXXX hearing again until the follow up hearing in XX/XX/XXXX. He had been told nothing of what had gone on in the meantime, no bank representative with decision-making authority was present, and the meeting was a waste of time. \n\nDuring late XXXX and XXXX, we attempted to negotiate some type of settlement with the bank and asked them to participate in a private mediation. To each overture, the bank attorney simply said that hed pass the request on to his client and nothing more was heard. In response to my requests for payment of the supplemental judgement awarded in XX/XX/XXXX, this same attorney asked me, at least twice, to calculate the amount owing, with interest, as of a particular date. I sent him the information and received no response. On XX/XX/XXXX, the XXXX XXXX sheriffs office collected the judgement at a local US Bank branch and the funds were disbursed to me several months later. \n\nIn XX/XX/XXXX, the bank filed a new lawsuit, seeking a declaration that it was entitled to foreclose on the note and deed of trust, and that it could proceed under a lost note. Again, they failed to name their sole borrower as a defendant. We pointed this out, but the bank moved for summary judgment anyway. We filed a cross motion and the action was dismissed on XX/XX/XXXX, for failure to name the real party in interest. I was awarded attorney fees and an enhanced prevailing party fee for having to defend the action. \n\nTwo months later, more than eight years after my mothers death, and four years after the judge in their first failed foreclosure lawsuit told them in no uncertain terms that they needed to do it, the bank opened probate. The initial petition sought to appoint a professional fiduciary to serve as personal representative of the estate, even though my mothers will specified that one of her children should serve in that capacity. When this was pointed out to them, they filed an amended petition, but the accompanying order still listed the professional fiduciary as personal representative. I objected but before the hearing could be held, the court dismissed the second petition for other technical deficiencies, including, I believe, the wrong address for the court. A third petition was filed, and I was appointed personal representative on XX/XX/XXXX, eight months after the bank first filed for probate. \n\nIn the meantime, the bank ignored our requests for payment of the judgement associated with the dismissal of the motion for summary judgement in XX/XX/XXXX, until they hired a new law firm in XX/XX/XXXX. I believe this was the banks seventh set of attorneys and the first ones who seem to have learned from the mistakes of their predecessors. However, although they have more effectively navigated the complex legal process, they have shown no willingness to consider the effect the previous error-filled years have had on the condition of and actual value of the condo when compared with the purported payoff amount. \n\nI completed all the requirements to become the personal representative by early XX/XX/XXXX, although no probate hearings were ever held. Instead, the bank sought to proceed by judicial foreclosure and filed a Rule 21 Motion to Strike which was heard on XX/XX/XXXX. The bank was allowed to proceed with foreclosure without resolving the probate issue although some other elements of their motion were denied. \n\nIn XX/XX/XXXX the bank agreed to attend a private mediation, something Id been hoping to do for years. The attorneys were the only bank representatives present at the mediation, again no one with decision making authority appeared, and they did not seem to take the conference seriously. I felt that they acted disrespectfully toward the mediator, a retired judge, and generally seemed to mock the proceeding. When confronted with their blatant unwillingness to work towards negotiating a settlement, they responded with a statement implying that their presence was all the effort required from them. The mediator proposed a settlement which I accepted. He also requested that he be allowed to speak directly with someone at US Bank. That request was ignored and I heard nothing more about it. \n\nIn XX/XX/XXXX, the bank filed a Motion for Summary Judgement which was heard on XX/XX/XXXX and granted in part. Because the court found that there were genuine questions of fact as to the amount owing on the loan and whether certain charges were reasonable, the case went to trial on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nPrior to the trial, I made another good faith offer after the attorney stated that her client was willing to consider an offer from me. I sent the offer, along with a timeline of the history, through my attorney on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX pm PST. The local attorney for US bank responded just over an hour later with a cryptic message citing the current pay off amount as a counteroffer. I was willing to negotiate my offer, but the timing of the response suggested that the attorney had not taken the time to seriously consider it. Since the banks headquarters are in the central time zone, they would have been closed at the time my offer was sent, confirming my long-term suspicion that my offers were not being presented to anyone at the bank. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, the court ruled that Because of plaintiffs repeated failures to properly file and pursue this foreclosure action, plaintiff shall not be entitled to claim interest on the periods between XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, between XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, and between XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX. The payoff amount on that day was {$980000.00}, almost {$360000.00} more than the principal balance of XXXX. He did not reduce the amount of other bank charges that occurred during that time, totaling around {$180000.00}, which were entirely related to the banks failure to properly prosecute the case. \n\nThe judge ordered counsel for plaintiff to submit a form of judgment. The attorneys original calculation was approximately {$10000.00} off, in the banks favor. Recalculated correctly, the ruling knocked off around {$70000.00} leaving a payoff balance of over {$910000.00} for an uninhabitable condominium which was most recently appraised at {$63000.00}, on XX/XX/XXXX, due to multiple issues which have only worsened since that time. \n\nI commissioned the XXXX appraisal after an appraiser hired by the bank in XXXX stated that there were no defects associated with the unit even though he included photos of the torn-out kitchen, hallway, bedroom flooring, and breached sliding glass doors in his report. For my part, I made a point to hire an appraiser who had previously appraised the unit for US Bank in XXXX, assuming it was someone they trusted. Its important to note that the XXXX appraisal was performed while the bank was supposedly considering my offer at that time, although they never followed up on that. In fact, all these appraisals were performed based on the implication that the bank was willing to negotiate a deal with me. \n\nI have received estimates to repair the condominium that have ranged from around {$170000.00} up to {$520000.00} depending on the level of repairs. The cost of repairs, and the length of time it would take to accomplish them, have gone up considerably over the years especially in the past six months due to supply chain difficulties and shortages. According to real estate agents and comparing sales of other units in the condominium complex, the lower end repairs might result in a sales price of around {$850000.00}. The higher end repairs could conceivably result in a sales price of {$1.00} million. A neighbor, who had at one time expressed interest in purchasing the unit, recently stated that he would not pay more than {$500000.00} since repairs and updates would run into the hundreds of thousands. \n\nAll of this is to say that, regardless of the recent court ruling, the bank will almost certainly not find a buyer at auction for anywhere near {$910000.00}, let alone over {$980000.00} which was their most recent counteroffer to me. Not only will they be selling an uninhabitable, bank owned property, with a history of mold, and disclosure requirements that they will have no knowledge about, US Bank will also have extensive holding costs and legal expenses in the interim. The HOA dues of $ XXXX and property taxes of $ XXXX could reduce their buyers pool by as much as 50 % since it will preclude half the potential buyers from obtaining conventional financing. The continued presence of toxic mold in the HVAC system from the incident in XXXX, a new mold problem under the existing kitchen sink ( despite the water being turned off at the main ) and the fact that most of the kitchen as well as the bedroom flooring had to be torn out due to yet another mold problem, will be further barriers to conventional financing. \n\nIn addition, the unit has sole responsibility for a deck that it does not own but must maintain. The drainage on the deck is faulty and it is impossible to keep water from ponding. The HOA has refused to repair it in the past, even though it is a limited common element. There is a long history of water intrusion issues in the entire complex and there is currently wet rot and dry rot involving the exterior siding of this condo. The sliding glass doors are breached and need to be replaced. The HOA board is aware of these issues but have made no move to correct the defects that caused them. \n\nAlthough I have undertaken demolition and remediation to stem the most destructive mold damage, there are additional areas of potential concern, noted in the mold report attached to this complaint. A buyer faces the risk that these issues cant be solved unless the HOA first repairs common elements, something that has proven to be an uphill battle in the past. A new owner could undertake extensive repairs only to have the water intrusion continue because the association has not solved the underlying problems. The extent of the problems is unknown, and a rational buyer wouldnt buy the unit at all or would want compensation for not being able to live in it until repairs were negotiated and performed, or for potentially having to repair it twice. Alternatively, the bank could fight these battles with the HOA prior to selling the unit and further increase its own costs.\n\nYet according to their attorneys, US Bank has refused to entertain my most recent cash offer of {$64000.00}, which I was open to negotiate further, and they refused to respond to the mediators proposed resolution which would have had me pay the bank {$610000.00} in XX/XX/XXXX and saved them tens of thousands of dollars for the outstanding HOA lien, property taxes, and legal fees that they have subsequently paid. I cant help but feel that, either a suitable representative at the bank has never been consulted about this matter or that there is some form of discrimination occurring here. I find the fact that a bank, purportedly the ultimate authority in numerical accuracy, could not even calculate a simple mathematical formula to determine the amount of interest precluded by the judge in the most recent hearing, highly suspicious for the latter. Certainly, there are actuaries at the bank capable of not making a {$10000.00} mistake. That error seems more likely to have originated with an attorney who did not consult their client. \n\nI have never disputed that my mother took out a loan from US Bank and held a mortgage with them at the time of her death in XXXX. In fact, I diligently tried to give the condominium to the bank in the first two years after her death. They made it exceedingly hard for me to even reach them, let alone to negotiate whatever necessary transfer of title would have been required at that time. They never offered a cash for keys or deed in lieu option to me, possibilities that I didnt even know existed, and in fact denied that anything of that nature was possible when I asked their first attorney at the foreclosure avoidance mediation in XX/XX/XXXX if there could be a quick and simple resolution. I never learned those terms until the most recent bank attorney took over a little over a year ago by which time it no longer seemed simple or advantageous. \n\nFor almost a decade, I have been trying to navigate a treacherous line between performing my fiduciary responsibility to an insolvent trust and my own priorities. Ive been stuck taking care of a condominium that I do not own and havent been able to live in or rent out since I became aware of the water intrusion and mold issues in XXXX. To make it livable, I would have had to pay for repairs out of my own pocket, not knowing if the bank would foreclose before I had an opportunity to recoup those expenditures. If I had known that it would take six more years for the bank to successfully foreclose, that investment would have been worth it. But I would never have predicted this outcome. If the bank had foreclosed quickly, they would have been the only beneficiary of any improvements I paid for. I asked one of their lawyers if the bank would be willing to reimburse me if that occurred and he never responded. \n\nAs it is, I have had considerable out of pocket expenses stemming from my position as trustee of a trust that has no assets other than the condo. These include utilities, water damage and mold repair/remediation/demolition, multiple mold inspections and testing, appraisals, foreclosure avoidance and private mediation fees, legal expenses, plumbing repairs, condo insurance, contractor estimates, and probate expenses which turned out to be for naught. I have dealt with the occasional crisis and overall have spent close to {$100000.00} that has not been reimbursed. Its been stressful and costly and from my perspective has served to benefit no one except, perhaps, the bank who did not have to care for the place during the years when its value was markedly reduced by the financial crisis they contributed to causing. My sense is that US Bank has probably already made a profit from this propertys loss of value in the form of government bailouts, while that same loss of value was exceedingly costly for me and kept me from selling the condo. \n\nThe bank has dragged their feet at every turn and refused to negotiate with me in good faith, all the while adding to what they claim to be owed at an exponential rate so that their payoff amount now borders on the ridiculous and bears no resemblance to the actual value of the property. I have done nothing to cause these delays, responding promptly and to the best of my ability to whatever they requested from me. If there was a situation in which I could have brought this to a close earlier, while still performing the duties of trustee, it was never clear to me, and the bank never brought such an offer to the table. Instead, they hired one set of attorneys after another, each apparently meant to correct the errors of previous counsel, only to have those mistakes repeated. They have wasted my time and the courts time, as well as their own. \n\nI have repeatedly been told that this probably all stemmed from negligence, that this property file inadvertently kept ending up at the bottom of a pile. My attorneys have always believed that the bank would eventually come to their senses and make a deal with me rather than continue to make the very choices that cost them more money. Isnt it the nature of a bank to put itself into the most profitable position? And yet, in this case, US Bank repeatedly chooses what appears to be the opposite and its difficult for me to believe there hasnt been some ulterior motive. Will they end up with the property and a big tax write off in addition to the bail out money they might have already received? Would it be fair of them to cost me a large amount of money, and ten years of my life, in order to do so? Or are they willing to lose money simply to discriminate against me for unknown reasons? None of it makes sense. \n\nI understand that this case has been fully litigated and that filing a complaint at this late date might be seen as sour grapes. I disagree. The fact that it was litigated for eight years was entirely due to bank errors and omissions and I believe that to be the most generous explanation. I wish that I had known about your agency 8 years ago, but its only recently been brought to my attention. I also recently discovered an email address for the CEO of US Bank and sent an email which elicited a response from the executive communications division on XX/XX/XXXX XXXX. I had been ready to submit this complaint at that time but held off in the hopes the bank would follow up with me. As of this date, they have not done so. \n\nIn summary, my case with U.S. Bank has dragged on for nearly ten years and thru seven sets of bank attorneys. The condo has been severely damaged during the delays which has cost me a great deal of money. I have been sued personally by the bank, which was traumatic even though they lost, and have had a decade of legal expenses. During all this time the bank has never empowered anyone to negotiate a resolution or attempted in good faith to conclude a deal. \n\nI respectfully ask for your help. Since the court filings are public record, I am not attaching all of them to this complaint but will be happy to provide them if needed. Other relevant documents are attached. Please note that I have only included a few representative exchanges between myself and US Bancorp. If needed, I can supply copies of all communications between us. \n\n\nThank you for your attention. \nSincerely. \n\n*I have uploaded an unredacted copy of this narrative, which has superscripts to direct the reader to the appropriate document as the story unfolds, along with the supporting documents.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-01-07T21:23:01.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"XXXXX","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5083112","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"U.S. BANCORP","date_received":"2022-01-07T20:45:41.000Z","state":"OR","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Since the court filings are public record, I am not attaching all of them to this complaint but will be happy to <em>provide</em> them if needed. Other <em>relevant</em> documents are attached. Please note that I have only included a few representative exchanges between myself and US Bancorp. If needed, I can supply copies of all communications between us. \n\n\nThank you for your attention. \nSincerely."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[4.78016,"5083112"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21861416","_score":3.4423716,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"FORMAL DISPUTE, FRAUD CLAIM, AND NOTICE OF REGULATORY ESCALATION Unauthorized Balance Transfer and Associated Fees I am writing to formally dispute an unauthorized balance transfer in the amount of {$17000.00}, along with an associated transaction fee of {$690.00}, posted to my credit card account ending in XXXX. \n\nThis transaction was not authorized by me, occurred without my knowledge or consent, and took place during a documented XXXX  XXXX attack and coordinated fraud attempt targeting my accounts. \n\nThe funds were transferred to an XXXX XXXX issued by XXXX XXXX ( account ending in XXXX ), with which I have no affiliation and no corresponding account on my credit reports ( see XXXX  XXXX ). \n\nI am also formally disputing the handling of my claim, which has now been closed multiple times without explanation, without evidence review, and while I was actively attempting to submit documentation. \n\nXXXX. CONTEXT : COORDINATED FRAUD PATTERN Beginning XX/XX/XXXX, I was subjected to a large-scale spam attack, coinciding with repeated fraudulent attempts to transfer funds to external Apple Card accounts : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX ) This demonstrates a persistent and evolving fraud attempt, not an isolated event. \n\nXXXX. CRITICAL FACTS ESTABLISHING FRAUD I have never conducted a balance transfer of this magnitude and any transfers I have done recently have been to pay off my Bank of America cards I have no relationship with either account ( XXXX or XXXX ) Neither account appears on my credit reports ( Exhibit XXXX ) No new accounts or inquiries exist I have never carried a balance remotely approaching {$17000.00} Most critically : A fraudulent balance transfer attempt on XX/XX/XXXX was made using a newly reissued card that had not been opened, accessed, or activated by me. \nThis confirms the activity was not initiated by me and could not have been authorized through normal account access. \n\nDetailed Chronological Timeline of Events XX/XX/XXXX Spam Bombing Attack Begins/ Credit Bureaus Frozen On XX/XX/XXXX, I began experiencing what appeared to be a coordinated spam bombing attack against my email account. I was receiving an overwhelming volume of spam emails, which appeared designed to obscure legitimate communications and interfere with my ability to monitor account activity. \n\nIn response, I immediately took protective action and froze my accounts with all three major credit bureaus. \n\nSupporting XXXX  : XXXX  XXXX Credit Bureau Freeze Confirmations XX/XX/XXXX IT Security Review/ Password and Account Protection On XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted my IT department and explained that I was being targeted by a spam bombing attack. My IT department advised me on immediate steps to secure my accounts and helped me implement spam filters until the attack stopped. He also permanently deleted the spam emails from XX/XX/XXXX while he was working on my account hence no XX/XX/XXXX email evidence. To be clear, we did a THOROUGH review of the emails to find any suspicious emails or transaction alerts before doing so. \n\nHe can be contacted at : XXXX : XXXX to corroborate. \n\nPer his suggestion, I also checked XXXX Password Checkup and XXXX Password Security to determine whether any of my passwords had been involved in a security breach. Some passwords were flagged as compromised, but based on the available information, my Bank of America credentials were not identified as compromised. \n\nI changed the compromised passwords and continued monitoring my accounts closely. \n\nSupporting Exhibit : XXXX  XXXX IT Security Measures email request XXXX  XXXX Sworn Declaration of whereabouts ( XX/XX/XXXX ) XX/XX/XXXX Unauthorized Balance Transfer Posts WITH NO FRAUD ALERT On XX/XX/XXXX, an unauthorized balance transfer in the amount of {$17000.00} was processed on my Bank of America credit card account ending in XXXX. A related transaction fee of {$690.00} was also charged. \n\nThe transfer was made to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank, account ending in XXXX. \nI did not authorize this transaction. I have no affiliation with this XXXX XXXX account, and no such card or corresponding account appears on my credit reports. \n\nMost concerning, I received no fraud alert, text message, email notification, or verification request for this large and highly unusual transaction. \n\nSupporting Exhibit : XXXX  XXXX Account Statement Showing Unauthorized Balance Transfer and Transaction Fee XX/XX/XXXX Fraud Alerts Received for Attempted Transfers to XXXX XXXX Ending in XXXX XXXX XXXX, I received a text message from Bank of America XXXX XXXX XXXX stating that a balance transfer had been attempted to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, account ending in XXXX. I was taking my children to school at the time. \nXXXX XXXX, I received another fraud notification regarding attempted activity. I responded NO to confirm that I did not authorize the attempted balance transfer. \n\nI immediately called Bank of America to cancel the card and report that I was being targeted. I specifically informed the representative that I had been experiencing spam bombing attacks and that I believed someone was actively attempting to defraud me. \n\nDuring this call, no one informed me that an unauthorized {$17000.00} balance transfer had already been charged the day before, on XX/XX/XXXX, to the same XXXX XXXX account ending in XXXX. The representative did not mention any suspicious transactions or connect the XX/XX/XXXX attempted transfer alerts to the XX/XX/XXXX transaction. \n\nThis is one of the most troubling facts : Bank of America sent alerts for attempted transfers on XX/XX/XXXX, but did not send any alert for the larger transfer that actually went through on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nSupporting Exhibits : XXXX  XXXX Screenshot of XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX  Fraud Alert Text Referencing Apple Card Ending in XXXX Exhibit XXXX Screenshot of XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX  Fraud Alert and NO Response XX/XX/XXXX Unauthorized Charges Discovered / Card Canceled and Reissued On XX/XX/XXXX, I checked my Bank of America accounts and saw that the balance on my card ending in XXXX was over {$20000.00}. \n\nI then discovered two unauthorized charges that had posted on XX/XX/XXXX : {$17000.00} unauthorized balance transfer {$690.00} transaction fee These charges were connected to the unauthorized balance transfer to : Transaction Type : Balance Transfers Offer ID : XXXX Reference number : XXXX Merchant Name : Balance Transfer Apple CA I immediately contacted Bank of America. I explained that I did not authorize the transaction, that I had already reported suspicious activity on XX/XX/XXXX, and that I had been experiencing spam bombing attacks. \nBank of America canceled my card and sent a replacement card. I was told that I would need to complete and return a letter that would be sent to me, and that I needed to return it within 10 days. \n\nSupporting Exhibit : XXXX  XXXX Account Snapshot Showing Unauthorized Charges XX/XX/XXXX Credit Reports Reviewed / No Matching Accounts or Balances I logged into my credit reports ( all three bureaus ) to confirm whether any new accounts had been opened in my name. \n\nThe reports showed : No new accounts opened in my name No new inquiries No XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account ending in XXXX No XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX account ending in XXXX No outside credit card balances large enough to justify a balance transfer of this size I have been carrying low balances outside of Bank of America for a long time. Nothing in my credit reports supports or explains a transfer of this amount. \n\nSupporting Exhibit : XXXX  XXXX Credit Reports Showing No Matching Apple Card Accounts, No New Accounts, No Inquiries, and No Balances Supporting the Transfer XX/XX/XXXX FTC Identity Theft Report Filed On XX/XX/XXXX, I filed an identity theft report with the Federal Trade Commission. \n\nThis report was filed because the unauthorized balance transfer, spam bombing attack, and repeated attempted transfers strongly indicated that I was the victim of coordinated identity theft and fraud. \n\nSupporting Exhibit : XXXX  XXXX FTC Identity Theft Report XX/XX/XXXX Police Report Filed With XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Department On XX/XX/XXXX, I filed a police report with the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Department, XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nAn officer came to my home, and I showed him the information and documentation I had gathered, including the suspicious activity, the spam attack, and the fraudulent balance transfer. \n\nSupporting Exhibit : XXXX  XXXX Police Report XX/XX/XXXX Bank of America Claim Closed Before Evidence Was Submitted By XX/XX/XXXX, I had not received the letter in the mail that Bank of America told me would be sent after my XX/XX/XXXX call. I also had not received a temporary credit for the fraudulent transaction that was promised on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nI called Bank of America again. The representative placed me on hold for a long time and stated that I should have received my credit by then. \n\nDuring this call, I was told that my claim had been closed, even though I had not submitted my evidence yet and had not received the letter I had been told to expect. \n\nThe representative reopened or reissued the claim and stated that I should receive the letter shortly. She also told me that I would have to return the letter within 10 days of receiving it, not 10 days from the claim date. This was confusing because I had previously been told I had 10 days, but I had not yet received anything that would allow me to submit my documentation properly. \n\nThis was the first point at which it became clear that my claim was being handled inconsistently and possibly closed without a proper review. \n\n\nXX/XX/XXXX New Fraud Attempt on Reissued, Unactivated Card On XX/XX/XXXX, I received another alert regarding an attempted balance transfer. \nThis time, the attempted transfer was for {$17000.00} to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, account ending in XXXX. \n\nThis was especially alarming because the request was made on my newly reissued Bank of America card, which had been issued due to the prior fraud. I had not opened the envelope containing the new card, had not accessed the new card, and had not activated it. \n\nThis is a critical fact. A balance transfer request was attempted on a reissued card that I had not opened or activated. This further confirms that the fraudulent activity was not initiated by me and could not have resulted from my normal use of the card. \n\nFor this attempted transfer, I received both a text alert and an email alert from Bank of America. This contrasts sharply with the XX/XX/XXXX unauthorized transfer, for which I received no alert despite the much larger and successful transaction. \n\nSupporting Exhibit : XXXX  XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Fraud Alert for Attempted Transfer to XXXX XXXX Ending in XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Immediate Call to BofA / Agent Accuses Me of Liability and Locks Me Out Immediately after receiving the XX/XX/XXXX attempted balance transfer alert, I called Bank of America. \n\nI explained the full situation again, including : The ongoing spam bombing attack The prior unauthorized balance transfer The XX/XX/XXXX attempted fraud alerts The fact that I had already filed a claim The fact that this new attempted transfer was made on a reissued card that had not been opened or activated During this call, the agent told me that my claim had been closed and that I had been found liable for the transfer. \n\nI was horrified. When I asked for details, the agent was rude and told me she could not talk to me. She then locked me out of my accounts and told me I would have no access until I went into a financial center and showed two forms of identification. \n\nThis was deeply distressing because I was calling to report another active fraud attempt, and instead of receiving help, I was locked out of my accounts and accused of being liable for a transaction I did not authorize. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX In-Person Visit to Bank of America XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX and XXXX Immediately after being locked out, I went in person to the Bank of America XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX and XXXX in XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nI worked with XXXX XXXX. \n\nAt the branch : I explained the full fraud situation again I provided two forms of identification I entered my PIN when my debit card was swiped I explained that I had been spam attacked I explained that I had already reported the fraud I explained that the new attempted transfer was made on a reissued card that had not been opened or activated XXXX XXXX eventually called the Bank of America fraud department. \n\nWe spoke with a male fraud department representative who told me that my claim had been closed and that I had been found liable. \n\nI argued that this made no sense because : I had not uploaded all of my evidence I had not received the letter in the mail I had not been given an alternate way to submit documentation I had reported the fraud immediately I had received alerts for related attempted transfers I had no relationship with the XXXX XXXX  accounts involved The latest attempt occurred on a reissued, unactivated card After a very confusing conversation and a very long period of time, the fraud representative stated that he had reopened my claim and unlocked my card so I could access the claim online. \nI checked my phone while still at the branch and confirmed that the claim was accessible again. However, there was no link to upload additional documents. \n\nWhen I pointed this out, the representative placed me on hold again for a long time. He eventually came back and told me that it could take up to 24 hours for the upload link to appear and that I should be able to upload my documentation the next day. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Email to XXXX On XX/XX/XXXX, I also emailed XXXX to report the fraudulent transfer request and to document that fraud attempts were continuing. \n\nI also changed my Bank of America password online. \n\nSupporting Exhibit : XXXX  XXXX Email to XXXX Regarding Fraudulent Transfer Request XX/XX/XXXX Ongoing Spam Bombing Attack Also on XX/XX/XXXX, I continued to experience an active spam bombing attack. \n\nBetween approximately XXXX XXXX  and XXXX XXXX  XXXX, I received : Over 1,600 spam emails to my spam folder Over 30 spam emails that made it into my inbox This was happening at the same time I received the Bank of America notification regarding the attempted balance transfer. \n\nThe spam bombing was ongoing and directly overlapped with the fraud attempt. \n\nSupporting Exhibit : XXXX  XXXX Spam Attack Screenshots and Logs Showing XXXX Spam Emails and XXXX Inbox Emails XX/XX/XXXX Claim Closed Again Overnight Despite Being Reopened the Prior Day On the morning of XX/XX/XXXX, I saw that I had received an email from Bank of America XXXX XXXX XXXX  the night before stating that my claim had been closed again. \n\nThis was shocking because on XX/XX/XXXX I had spent hours : Calling Bank of America Going in person to the financial center Providing two forms of ID Entering my PIN Speaking with the branch representative Speaking with the fraud department Having the claim reopened Being told I would be able to upload evidence the next day The XX/XX/XXXX email made it appear as if everything that happened on XX/XX/XXXX had never occurred. \n\nAt this point, I felt as though Bank of America was actively preventing me from defending myself against fraud. I had repeatedly attempted to provide evidence, but my claim was closed before I could upload it, reopened only after significant effort, and then closed again overnight before the upload function was made available. \n\nThis sequence made me feel gaslit, mistreated, and obstructed in my attempt to resolve a clearly fraudulent transaction. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Claim Closed Again / Escalation to Supervisor / Continued Obstruction On the morning of XX/XX/XXXX, after discovering that my claim had been closed again at XXXX XXXX  the prior evening ( see XXXX  XXXX ), and at XXXX XXXX  ( see XXXX XXXX ) I received an email that stated that a final review was done and my claim was declined! \n\nI immediately called Bank of America again to seek clarification and escalation. \n\nRequest for Supervisor and Escalation During this call, I specifically requested to speak with a fraud claims supervisor. I was transferred to an individual identified as XXXX from XXXX. \n\nI then retold the entire sequence of events once again, including : The spam bombing attack beginning XX/XX/XXXX The unauthorized XX/XX/XXXX balance transfer The XX/XX/XXXX fraud alerts that I declined The fact that I never received a notification for the actual fraudulent transaction The XX/XX/XXXX attempted transfer on a reissued, unactivated card The branch visit where I spent hours verifying my identity and reopening the claim The repeated assurances from multiple Bank of America representatives that : o I would receive a letter o I would receive an upload link to submit evidence o My claim had been reopened o My accounts were secured At this point in the call, I was extremely distressed and crying uncontrollably, as I had now spent weeks attempting to resolve what is clearly a fraudulent transaction and had instead been : Given conflicting and inconsistent information Passed repeatedly between departments Prevented from submitting evidence Locked out of my accounts Told I was liable for a transaction I did not authorize Concerns Expressed During Call I clearly expressed to XXXX that : There has been a complete failure of customer service and fraud protection I do not understand how a fraudulent transaction of this magnitude was approved without alerting me I do not understand how multiple employees are providing contradictory information about the claims process I feel that I am being passed from department to department to avoid resolution I do not understand how a newly issued, unactivated replacement card could immediately be compromised again I do not feel that my finances are safe at Bank of America I further explained that : I have no involvement whatsoever with the fraudulent transaction I have provided and attempted to provide documentation demonstrating this I am being prevented from properly defending myself Response from Fraud Supervisor ( XXXX ) XXXX was professional and empathetic ; however, he confirmed that : My claim had been closed He was unable to confirm whether the claim had actually been reopened the prior day during my in-branch visit This was particularly concerning because I had : Spent hours in person at a branch Verified my identity with two forms of ID and PIN entry Been explicitly told by a fraud representative that everything was being taken care of and the claim was reopened Further Instructions Given XXXX provided me with a phone number for the fraud claim reviewing department and instructed me to call them on Monday, as they were not open at the time of the call. \n\nHe further instructed me that I would need to : Repeat the entire situation again Request that they provide me with a way to submit documentation demonstrating that I am not involved in this fraudulent transaction, as they have been actively trying to accuse me and hold me liable for a crime I did not commit. \n\nResulting Impact and Ongoing Harm At this point, the process had become circular and non-functional. I expressed clearly that : I feel like I am on a hamster wheel, being asked to repeat the same facts over and over without resolution I no longer have confidence that anything I am told by the bank is accurate or reliable I feel that I am being defrauded twice : o First by the individual ( s ) who stole my money o Second by the institution that allowed the transaction and is failing to correct it I also raised fundamental questions that remain unanswered : Why has a basic investigation not determined this was fraud? \nCan the bank not : o Trace where the funds were transferred?\n\no Confirm that the receiving account does not belong to me?\n\no Identify the origin location of the transfer and compare it to my actual location on XX/XX/XXXX? \no Recall or freeze the transferred funds? \n\nNotice of Further Action I informed XXXX that : I am prepared to file a formal complaint with the Federal Trade Commission I am prepared to engage legal counsel My husband, XXXX XXXX, and I are prepared to withdraw substantial funds ( approaching $ XXXX combined ) from Bank of America and move our banking and mortgage relationship elsewhere Personal and Professional Impact I also explained the real-world consequences of this failure : I have a scheduled mental wellness retreat in XXXX beginning Sunday through Wednesday ( XX/XX/XXXX ), which is now overshadowed by this unresolved issue Instead of resolution after nearly three weeks, I am now forced to carry this stress into that time To reiterate : I am raising two small children I work in a high-demand executive role as Senior Vice President at Entertainment Media Ventures I have just launched a new company, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, where I serve as XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX  I do not have ANY TIME as it is, and Bank of America has wasted dozens of hours of my time, taking away from critical work projects and time with my family Despite this, I have been : Treated dismissively Denied clear answers Prevented from submitting evidence And at times made to feel as though I am being treated as responsible for criminal activity rather than the victim of it Conclusion of XX/XX/XXXX Events At the conclusion of this call, there was still : No resolution No confirmed active claim under proper review No ability to submit evidence No assurance that my accounts are secure This situation is completely unacceptable, and I am demanding immediate resolution. \n\nSupporting Exhibit : XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank of America Sent at XXXX XXXX  Stating Claim Was Closed Again XX/XX/XXXX Escalation Attempt and Breakdown in Support Process On XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted Bank of America at XXXX, following prior instructions from a representative identified as XXXX. Upon reaching an agent, I immediately requested to speak with a supervisor due to the ongoing urgency and complexity of my fraud claim. \n\nInstead of being connected to a supervisor, I was transferred multiple times across departments. At each transfer, I was required to restate the full details of my situation. Eventually, I was connected with an individual who I believed to be a supervisor ; however, they appeared unfamiliar with my case and required a full re-explanation. That individual informed me that they had no information on how I could submit supporting evidence for my fraud claim, which directly contradicts prior guidance I had received. \n\nI was then transferred again. After once more explaining the situation, I discovered that I had been routed back to general customer service, rather than a fraud or supervisory team. At this point, after more than an hour on the phone and repeated failed transfers, I became extremely distressed. \nI formally requested that all calls from this date be reviewed and that the conduct of the customer service representatives involved be placed under formal internal review, as the handling of my case was disorganized, inefficient, and wholly inadequate given the seriousness of a fraud claim. The repeated misrouting and lack of procedural knowledge prevented me from submitting critical evidence and materially delayed resolution of my claim. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Failed Fax Attempts and Paid Third-Party Transmission On XX/XX/XXXX, I attempted to submit my fraud dispute documentation via fax to XXXX, as instructed. Multiple attempts to transmit the documents were unsuccessful and rejected. \nDue to the urgency of ensuring my evidence was received, I paid {$50.00} to send the documents via XXXX  XXXX  ( XXXX ). I received a confirmation indicating that the fax transmission was successful ( see XXXX XXXX ). \n\nTo further ensure delivery, I sent the documents again via an additional fax service ( XXXX  ), and received a second confirmation of successful transmission ( see XXXX  XXXX ). \n\nDespite following all provided instructions and incurring out-of-pocket expenses to do so, I have not received confirmation from Bank of America that my documentation has been properly received or logged into my case file. \n\nSupporting Exhibit : XXXX  XXXX Successful Fax Confirmation XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX Successful Fax Confirmation XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX Conflicting Information, Hostile Interaction, and IP Address Dispute On XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted Bank of America again and spoke with a representative identified as XXXX ( XXXX  ), who was empathetic and attempted to assist. I was then transferred to an individual named XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX, whose conduct was notably unprofessional and dismissive. I am formally requesting that this call be pulled and reviewed, as his behavior materially added to the distress and mishandling of my case. \n\nFollowing this interaction, I was transferred to XXXX, a supervisor, who stated that she would : File internal customer complaints regarding prior interactions Add notes documenting my repeated attempts to submit evidence Keep the fraud claim open until documentation is confirmed received During this call, XXXX stated that the IP address associated with the fraudulent transaction was consistent with my historical usage. \n\nI explicitly dispute this assertion. At the time of the unauthorized transaction, I was physically present at my office in XXXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX, a highly secured facility with verifiable access logs and surveillance records. I am prepared to provide supporting evidence confirming my location. \n\nAdditionally, it is widely recognized that IP addresses can be spoofed or masked, particularly in cases involving coordinated fraud or spam attacks. The presence of a familiar IP address alone does not constitute proof of authorization ( see XXXX  XXXX ). \nXXXX advised that I should also submit my documentation via certified mail, and confirmed that notes would be added to ensure my claim remains open pending receipt and review of my materials. \n\nSupporting Exhibit : XXXX  XXXX FBI.GOV article explaining the prevalence of IP address spoofing and its use in fraudulent activity. \n\nThis article explains that IP addresses can be manipulated, masked, or spoofed by bad actors to make a transaction appear as though it originated from a legitimate user or familiar location. Techniques such as VPN masking, proxy routing, and spoofing tools are commonly used in coordinated fraud and spam attacks. \n\nThe existence of a matching or familiar IP address does not constitute reliable proof of user authorization, particularly in cases involving : Spam or phishing attacks Unauthorized account access Coordinated fraud attempts This exhibit directly challenges Bank of Americas assertion that an IP address consistent with prior usage is sufficient evidence to attribute the transaction to me. It supports the position that additional authentication evidence is required to establish authorization. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Reversal of Temporary Credit and Ongoing Financial Harm On XX/XX/XXXX, I logged into my Bank of America account and observed that the previously issued temporary credit had been removed without prior notice or explanation. \n\nAs a result, my account balance reverted to approximately {$20000.00}, and I am now incurring interest charges on a balance that I continue to dispute as fraudulent. \n\nThis action has caused immediate and ongoing financial harm, including : Accrual of interest on a disputed and unauthorized transaction Significant negative impact on my account standing Additional emotional distress given the unresolved status of my fraud claim At no point prior to the removal of the temporary credit was I provided : A formal determination letter Supporting evidence for denial of my claim Confirmation that my submitted documentation had been received and reviewed Given that my fraud claim remains disputed and under active submission of supporting evidence, the removal of the temporary credit appears premature and procedurally improper. \n\nI am requesting : Immediate reinstatement of the temporary credit pending full investigation Reversal of all interest and fees associated with the disputed transaction A written explanation detailing the basis for removal of the credit Final Notice of Escalation If this matter is not resolved promptly and appropriately, I will have no choice but to escalate this dispute further. This includes filing formal complaints with the Better Business Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission, and all other relevant regulatory and oversight authorities, as well as pursuing direct legal action against Bank of America. \n\nI am fully prepared to provide the extensive documentation, timeline, and supporting exhibits outlined herein, which clearly demonstrate both the fraudulent nature of this transaction and the banks failure to conduct a reasonable and consistent investigation. I will also seek recovery of all damages incurred, including financial losses, interest charges, and any additional remedies available under applicable law. \n\nI strongly urge Bank of America to take immediate corrective action to resolve this matter before further escalation becomes necessary. \n\nI declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of XXXX and the United States of America that the foregoing statements, timeline, and supporting exhibits are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. \nI further declare that all documents submitted in support of this claim are authentic and have not been altered, and that this statement is made in good faith in connection with a fraud dispute.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-04T19:03:56.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"90046","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21861416","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2026-05-04T18:45:30.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Most</em> concerning, I received no fraud alert, text message, email notification, or verification request for this large and highly unusual transaction."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[3.4423716,"21861416"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":9,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":9}]}},"product":{"doc_count":9,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":5,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":3},{"key":"Other type of mortgage","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Other debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"International money transfer","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Student loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Private student loan","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":9,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Confusing or misleading advertising or marketing","doc_count":1},{"key":"Delays in the application process","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing on a mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Delays with the closing process","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Getting a loan","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"High pressure sales tactics or recruiting","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Money was not available when promised","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Threatened to contact someone or share information improperly","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Contacted you after you asked them to stop","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":9,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":9}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":9,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":8},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":9,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":9}]}},"company":{"doc_count":9,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Altitude Community Law P.C.","doc_count":1},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"CrossCountry Mortgage LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"IDT Telecom, Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"Navient Solutions, LLC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America (\"NACA\")","doc_count":1},{"key":"PENTAGON FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":1},{"key":"U.S. BANCORP","doc_count":1},{"key":"WATERSTONE MORTGAGE CORPORATION","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":9,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"CA","doc_count":2},{"key":"OR","doc_count":2},{"key":"AZ","doc_count":1},{"key":"CO","doc_count":1},{"key":"MD","doc_count":1},{"key":"NY","doc_count":1},{"key":"VA","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":9,"company_public_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","doc_count":3}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":9,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Older American","doc_count":3},{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":2}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{}}}