Product: Mortgage

On XX/XX/2022 my husband and I began a mortgage refinance application with our incumbent lender, Rocket Mortgage ( Quicken ). Our request was assigned to a XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, with which we discussed our loan needs in detail. Our expressly stated loan purpose was to refinance with debt consolidation and cash out. That day through an initial phone conversation my husband had with XXXX XXXX, we clarified that the only debts we wanted to consolidate were an unsecured personal loan and our credit card balances. We consented to a credit pull and stated our income as follows : my husbands salary from his employer of over 12 years and my Social Security XXXX XXXX that I will receive for life due my permanently XXXX status. A few hours later, XXXX XXXX called my husband and stated that the only debt consolidation he could make work in addition to the mortgage refinance was to include paying off our auto loan, which we explicitly stated we did not want, and to leave the bulk of our revolving debt unpaid. When we objected to the idea of financing our vehicle for 30 years, XXXX XXXX further clarified that we had to pay off the auto loan to make the deal work. He went on to explain that there could be no cash-out because our estimated Debt-to-Income was high at 49.7 %, causing a rate of 5.375 % and an estimated monthly loan payment of {$2800.00}. The only amount we could request in addition to the refinance of the mortgage was approximately {$100000.00}. We estimated our personal loan and revolving credit balances to be roughly {$82000.00}. We estimated that our Debt-to-Income with the {$2800.00} estimated monthly payment would be roughly 46 %. When we asked XXXX XXXX why we could not use the {$100000.00} to pay off the {$82000.00} in revolving and personal loan debt we had originally requested, he evaded the question, focused on the monthly savings, and insisted my husband sign his version of the application, stating rates could go up tomorrow and that prime was already 4.25 %. My husband reminded XXXX XXXX that a discussion with me would happen prior to him signing any application. XXXX XXXX then jokingly stated he agreed because he had experienced a previous situation where he had to be a marriage XXXX instead of a mortgage XXXX, which we found distasteful given that XXXX XXXX had just been informed that I was previously a mortgage products underwriter, and that he was advocating for a bad deal. My husband requested electronic copies of the proposed loan details to be sent to my email address, and XXXX XXXX verified the accuracy of my email address on file prior to ending the call. We never received this email. I emailed him later that evening requesting his debt-to-income calculations due to the stated discrepancy, asked for confirmation that my SSD income was being considered, and what Rocket Mortgages best rate was since we knew prime was not 4.25 % as he previously stated. ( published rate was 3.5 % at time of inquiry ) *Please see first attachment for email. 
XXXX XXXX did not respond to my email. He did, however, leave a voicemail for my husband on the evening of XX/XX/XXXX. In the message, XXXX XXXX stated he received my email and that he did include my SSD income in the XXXX calculation. He then refocused on the savings realized in his version of application, stating youll still be saving a lot. I know you needed a little bit of the extra cash. XXXX XXXX ended the message with a request to reach out to him if we had additional questions, although, he had already evaded multiple direct questions, verbal and written. *We have the voicemail and can provide it upon request. 
It was clear that XXXX XXXX would not allow us to apply for refinance with debt consolidation of our unsecured personal loan and all revolving credit balances. It was clear that XXXX XXXX inflated our estimated XXXX to potentially force us into a higher rate and monthly payment arousing our suspicion that my SSD income was not being considered. It was clear that XXXX XXXX was arbitrarily requiring the payoff of our auto loan rather than coming to a consensus about our loan needs and our estimated XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX I filed a complaint with HUD for review. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, when I checked the Rocket Mortgage online portal, I saw that the loan details were published and available for viewing, despite never having consented to a loan structured that way. It appeared that XXXX XXXX submitted his version of the application on this day, considering a signature for Intent to Proceed was now being requested. The loan details were those that I had requested to be emailed to me for review prior to consenting to proceed. XXXX XXXX never provided the XXXX calculation he relied upon to create those loan details. Later that day I received a phone call and voicemail from XXXX XXXX requesting a call back to discuss my refinance application with Rocket Mortgage *Voicemail available upon request. Nearly simultaneously, my husband and I received an email from XXXX XXXX stating that he had been assigned to our profile to help lock in our savings. *See second email attachment Roughly 90 minutes later, I responded to XXXX XXXX via email. I explained that I was confused about why XXXX XXXX was no longer assigned to my request, and I inquired about what notes XXXX XXXX provided to XXXX XXXX. *See third attachment About an hour later XXXX XXXX XXXX that the file had been escalated to him because they hadnt reached out in a couple of days, that his team is like a safety net, and to confirm that we were looking to take some cash out to consolidate debt. *See fourth email attachment At this point, I felt pressure to consent to applying for a bad deal that did not meet our stated needs and could potentially cause us financial harm. The loan details contained the credit reports that Rocket Mortgage obtained on our behalf. The reports showed that our joint credit fell into the Excellent category, and the only remarks stated that our revolving credit card balances were too high. This supported our original intent to consolidate our debts in order to protect our creditworthiness. *See fifth email attachment. XXXX XXXX was advising us to apply for a loan that would allow the bulk of these revolving debts to remain unresolved, therefore generating loan pricing and residual debt that would undoubtedly cause us financial harm in the long term. Its clear that his actions to insist upon a more expensive loan structure that not only imposed an abusive rate and excessively reduced the equity that we intended to utilize to maintain our creditworthiness, his aggressive tactics by not offering to lock the rate that he said was good, threats that rates could go up any minute, and his deception regarding the published prime rate are clearly predatory lending practices. We did not consent to apply for these terms. However, the loan details that were made available on XX/XX/XXXX suggest that XXXX XXXX submitted an application structured in a way he was aware we did not and would not consent to. 
After consideration of the facts, we decided to stop responding to outreach from Rocket Mortgage. Through applying with a different lender, we were able to compare the exact version of an application we requested with what XXXX XXXX insisted we apply for. Our estimated XXXX was significantly lower at 44 % because the alternate lender allowed us to pursue the application with the exact debt consolidation we requested. If the XXXX was truly the issue that XXXX XXXX had with submitting our application as we requested, then why was he unwilling to share his calculation? It was clear that because of his evasion of direct questions, his refusal to submit the application as we requested, and his requirement of an unwanted payoff that I may be experiencing prejudicial treatment, as well, by XXXX XXXX. 
Today I am filing this complaint in addition to the HUD complaint because the facts regarding this matter do not appear to illustrate occupational incompetence on the part of XXXX XXXX but rather his overt, egregious, and seemingly intentional violations of fair lending laws and ethical practices. I understand that I am in a unique position in that I was able to learn the mortgage business from the perspective of a lender before becoming permanently XXXX. The likelihood that I am the only borrower to have been in this position is extremely small. The likelihood that another borrower who also receives XXXX and has previous mortgage lending experience is likely smaller. For this reason, I think that filing dual complaints is necessary so that XXXX XXXX and Rocket Mortgages lending practices specific to prejudicial and predatory treatment of applicants with SSD income can be thoroughly investigated.