Product: Mortgage

We are writing to report a case of predatory lending. In XX/XX/2022 we shopped for a mortgage and locked in an interest rate of 4.5 % with XXXX XXXX of Ameris Bank. After many twists and turns ( described below ), we were only able to close on our loan weeks after our scheduled closing date by purchasing a point for an additional {$16000.00} that was not disclosed to us at the time we locked in our loan on XX/XX/XXXX. This is a clear case of predatory lending -- we were induced to move forward with Ameris Bank based on XXXX XXXX 's misrepresentations and her assurances that our rate was locked, and we were only able to move forward on the purchase of our home by paying significantly more than what we were quoted. 

-- - On XX/XX/2022 we reached out to XXXX XXXX with Ameris Bank to inquire about an acquisition and construction to XXXX loan. At this point we were shopping interest rates with different banks. The closing date was set for XX/XX/XXXX. 

During the first phone call with XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX she quoted us an interest rate of 4.5 % and insisted to start the mortgage application process quickly so she could lock in the rate. We completed the loan application and she told us we were locked on the same day. In multiple phone conversations with XXXX XXXX in the following days, she confirmed, that the rate of 4.5 % was locked in. 

We continued to submit documents to the Ameris portal at XXXX 's request, such as construction plans, homeowners insurance quotes, income and asset information etc. 
We even paid and ordered two separate appraisals for the construction loan. 

We also received a loan estimate from Ameris bank that confirms the 4.5 % rate. That document indicates that our rate was not locked ; however, XXXX XXXX continued to represent to us that our rate was locked, and we trusted her representations. When we asked XXXX about inconsistencies in the paperwork she was asking us to sign, she said that ( i ) the documents were not accurate but were required by what she described as a " Confusion in Lending '' law, ( ii ) that we needed to sign the paperwork in order to make our closing date, and ( iii ) our interest rate was, in fact, locked. 

On XX/XX/XXXX we learned that Ameris was not on track for our scheduled closing date of XX/XX/XXXX, and that XXXX XXXX had reached out to the seller 's agent without our knowledge to try to push back the agreed-upon closing date. 

We immediately escalated our concerns to XXXX XXXX at Ameris, who told us that our closing date had been entered in Ameris 's system as XX/XX/XXXX. We told her that was a mistake and asked her to escalate our loan process to her supervisor. 

On XX/XX/XXXX we had a phone call with XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for Ameris Bank to find a solution. XXXX XXXX informed us that Ameris would not be prepared to close on our loan on XX/XX/XXXX, despite XXXX XXXX repeated assurances that we were on track for closing over the last several weeks. He proposed that we move forward with a two-loan structure to ensure that we could close on XX/XX/XXXX with a XXXX ARM, and he committed to send us disclosures for both loans the next day so we could make an informed decision about how to move forward. He confirmed that the rate for both loans would be 4.5 % ( as promised ) and he said that Ameris would cover the difference in costs between the construction to perm loan we were working on and this new two-loan arrangement. He said we would " come out ahead '' in the end. ( Our realtor was also on this call and took notes on XXXX XXXX 's representations ). 

In a follow-up email, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was " confirming '' that our loan was locked at 4.5 % with a point. This was the first time we were told that Ameris was requiring us to buy a point in order to get a 4.5 % interest rate. 

When we raised this with XXXX XXXX, he informed us that XXXX XXXX was fired because of her inappropriate behavior, but that Ameris would not honor that 4.5 % interest rate that we were quoted, even though XXXX XXXX told us we were locked. The reason he provided was that we could not prove that XXXX XXXX had made this commitment to us ( i.e., we did not have it in writing ). We said we did have her quote in writing, and he said we needed the word " lock '' in writing. We explained that in retrospect, it appears that XXXX deliberately made these representations over the phone and never in writing, and it had not occurred to us that we needed to put the word " lock '' in writing. XXXX XXXX agreed and said that this was likely deliberate on XXXX 's part, and told us that XXXX could not have locked in a 4.5 % interest rate because Ameris did not have that product available at the time. 

Ultimately, this cost us {$16000.00} more than what we agreed to pay. This is a clear case of predatory lending -- we were induced to move forward with Ameris based on Susans misrepresentations and her assurances that our rate was locked. And of course, in our view it was locked because she said it was!