Consumer complaint received 2019-11-25
Company: Rocket Mortgage, LLC
State: DC
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage

Complaint:
Application process for a mortgage refinancing began on XX/XX/XXXX, it took 22 weeks for the mortgage company Quicken Loans, Rocket Mortgage, made an adverse decision. The application process featured these errors : 1. Quicken lost key documents between transfer from the mortgage banker, to the technical team. All key documents were received by XXXX. Property tax documents were filed on XX/XX/XXXX. Mortgage banker XXXX XXXX. 
2. Because in the hand-off they lost key documents on retirement income they tried in XXXX to qualify loan based on rental income ; this led to a request to refile a tax return to restate some expenses tied to a rental property. Technical team leader XXXX XXXX. 
3. The technical team was advised that one of the rental properties operated at a loss, yet they said that if a tax expense was re-categorized as a management expense they could qualify the loan. They were advised that the refiled return would not change the profit/loss bottom line, or tax payable. They reviewed and approved the tax refiling. The IRS approved the filing in XXXX. Around first of XXXX, Quicken reversed its decision and concluded tax refiling was not relevant. XXXX XXXX 4. Mortgage banker ( XXXX ) realizes that pension income material had been lost and starts a new loan process and determines that pension income, plus interest income and other rental income still qualifies for underwriting. New technical team leader XXXX XXXX. 
5. XXXX, XXXX concludes that rental income can't be qualified because of " too many property tax bills '' violates a XXXX/XXXX  rule on 12 properties maximum tied to rental income. The company had the property tax information since XX/XX/XXXX. It took the company five months to figure out this technical rule problem. The company documented itself incapable of accurately reviewing information from the original loan process, in spite of assurances that could be successfully done. A number of items had to be refiled. 
5. XXXX, in an appeal XXXX XXXX ( in an ombudsman 's role ) concludes underwriting may have misunderstood the property tax information or there may be a rule exemption tied to commercial property. The basic issue is that Iowa farm land ( organized as three farms in three different counties ) includes 13 property tax bills. In this entire process, the firm relied on property tax bills, when other farm contract information documented only three farm rental contracts. 
6. On around XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX concluded that, despite sale of one tract of land, that the rental properties still exceeded the rule amount by ONE. Again based solely on property tax information rather than farm management information ; or legal property abstracts. Loan denied due to this qualification matter. Company was advised that they same material was available five months prior and that a five month wait for a decision was ridiculous. Client has asked for reimbursement for interest expenses tied to absurd 22 week loan timeline.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation