Product: Mortgage

This complaint against Truist Bank and is related to CFPB Claim # XXXX against Truist bank, which is currently closed. The response from Truist is not accurate and fails to include pertinent details. XXXX, who obtained the mortgage, passed away on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX XXXX  sister, XXXX, is the successor of her estate. XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, VA appointed me as guardian/conservator of XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. This was prior to BB & T and Suntrust Banks merging to become Truist Bank. XXXX  and XXXX had accounts with both banks. BB & T immediately accepted the legal documents, acknowledged XXXX death, XXXX as XXXX successor, and me as XXXX 's guardian/conservator allowing me to manage both XXXX XXXX and XXXX 's BB & T accounts. Suntrust refused to accept the legal documents and to acknowledge XXXX as XXXX successor and me as XXXX  guardian/conservator. I delivered the legal documents in-person and via mail on numerous occasions to no avail. Telephone calls to Suntrust, and then, Truist, resulted in me being told that Suntrust/Truist could only confer with XXXX  ( deceased ), and I could not be provided any information about the loan. Due to their refusal to confer with me, I had no knowledge that the insurance policy had lapsed. Based on Truists statement, the insurance policy was cancelled on XX/XX/XXXX, two months after XXXXXXXX XXXX death. XXXX 's death prevented her from paying the insurance premium and Suntrusts/Truists refusal to confer with me resulted in my inability to pay the insurance premium or obtain a new insurance policy upon my appointment as guardian and conservator of XXXX. I became aware of the insurance lapse when the mortgage bill to XXXX  noted that new insurance was purchased at an unreasonable price. I then immediately purchased and paid for insurance with XXXX effective XX/XX/XXXX, noting Truist as the Mortgage Company. Truist cancelled the more expensive insurance but continued including insurance escrow in the monthly payment. Hence, the insurance lapse was not the result of my inability or refusal to pay insurance but was due to Truists failure to acknowledge XXXX as the successor of XXXX  and me as XXXX  Guardian/Conservator, allowing me to obtain information about the loan. 

Principal and interest of the load is {$360.00}. In its response, Truist states at this time, the loan is not being escrowed for taxes. That statement is false. Please see attached mortgage account statements dated XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, stating that {$380.00} is being escrowed for taxes and insurance thereby making the total monthly payment {$740.00}. Please also see attached insurance bill which shows yearly insurance amount as {$2200.00} or {$190.00} per month. The escrowed amount of {$380.00} equates to {$4500.00} yearly, much more than the yearly cost of the yearly home insurance being paid. If the loan is not being escrowed for taxes, then why is the payment still showing that taxes are being escrowed and why is an additional {$190.00} being withheld? Please see the attached two most recent tax payment receipts showing said payments were made by me, not Truist. 

Truist previously put the property up for auction after repeatedly refusing to acknowledge XXXX as successor and me as guardian/conservator. It was only after my initial complaint with CFPB that Truist acknowledged XXXX as successor and me as guardian/conservator. A lot of unnecessary money was spent to stop the auction. This is yet another attempt by Truist to force foreclosure on this property. Truist needs to acknowledge that its repeated failure to acknowledge XXXX as successor and me as guardian/conservator resulted in the lengthy insurance lapse, not XXXX 's XXXX my inability or refusal to pay for insurance ; cease taking out escrow for taxes and explain the {$380.00} escrow being charged ; and return the monthly payment to its original amount of {$360.00}. At the minimum, only the amount needed to pay the insurance should be escrowed.