Product: Mortgage

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. 

It 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. 

I 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.

It 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 
The 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. 

Whereas 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}? 
Why 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.