Product: Mortgage

NewRez Mortgage has made three errors in their escrow disclosure/analysis of XX/XX/XXXX resulting in them demanding over {$5000.00} in escrow payments over the next 12 months where only approximately {$2200.00} is actually required. 

The primary error is the result of a XXXX, XXXX settlement of an assessment appeal, resulting in a retroactive tax account credit and prospective payment reduction, which was communicated by both me and the City to NewRez, and which they only partially incorporated correctly. As a result, ( 1 ) they incorrectly list the first three quarterly payments at the old amount, despite knowing and being able to confirm the correct lower amount, though - quizzically - the fourth quarter of the analysis ( the only one that is a projected amount ) uses the correct amount. Additionally ( 2 ) they fail to account for the credit on account, which requires that only {$11.00} be paid in the next two installments. Lastly, NewRez has paid, and ( 3 ) plans to continue paying, tax installments at incorrect times, which causes the minimum balance month to be incorrectly determined.

( 1 ) Incorrect payment amount. 

A stipulated judgment of the CT superior court resolved my assessment appeal on XX/XX/XXXX. [ DOC1 ] I reached out to NewRez shortly thereafter, and, after several weeks, they replied by secure email on XX/XX/XXXX that adjustments to assessment must be generated by the town and NewRez confirms that through a database. In late XXXX, the city assessor made the corrections in their system and transmitted mail notice to myself [ DOC2 ] and to NewRez, and concurrently corrected their public index with the new payment information. These confirm that for XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX the tax DUE is {$1000.00}. NewRez anticipates it's first three payments at {$1300.00}, the incorrect amount under the original assessment.

( 2 ) Disregarding balance on account. 

While the amount DUE per quarter is {$1300.00}, the amount PAYABLE is lower for the first two installments, due to the prior tax payments which became overpaid as result of the retroactive adjustment. That was also communicated [ DOC2 ], showing that {$0.00} was owed for XXXX, XXXX and only {$11.00} was owed for XXXX, XXXX. 

Despite nothing being owed, NewRez Paid XXXX ( the otherwise correct amount ) on XX/XX/XXXX, leaving the full credit in place. This pushes forward the credit into two quarters of the new analysis. As reflected in the city 's public tax database, [ DOC3 ], only {$1000.00} is due over the outstanding three quarters. 

I reached out to NewRez over a month ago through their messaging portal to advise that they made an unnecessary payment and confirm that they would pay nothing and adjust accordingly going forward. An email confirmation was received and subsequently, a letter dated XXXX received XXXX by mail stated they were " working on a response, '' which also happened in the prior communication. In the interim, the very incorrect analysis was issued. 

( 3 ) Incorrect payment months.

As per [ DOC2 ] and [ DOC3 ], XXXX  tax installments are owed in XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. In the attached analysis [ DOC4 ], pg 3, NewRez plans to make payments in XXXX, just one month later in XXXX, then XXXX and XXXX. Two of these are early and two are late. As a result of the back-to-back payments, they project a " low-water mark '' of {$830.00} in XXXX, against which they have statutory obligations and compute minimum payments. In actuality, nothing is due XXXX, and even with a corrected escrow collection, the XXXX balance, after the {$1100.00} payment, will be in excess of {$2800.00}, enough to pay the remaining installments even if nothing was corrected. 

At present, based on a corrected computation, a refund should be issued for some of the current excess balance on hand, or in the alternate, a significant escrow payment reduction is required.