Consumer complaint received 2023-03-19
Company: CALCON MUTUAL MORTGAGE LLC DBA ONETRUST HOME LOANS
State: CA
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Closing on a mortgage

Complaint:
I got into contract in XX/XX/2023 to purchase an investment property, and locked in a mortgage rate a few days later with " CalCon Mutual Mortgage LLC dba OneTrust Home Loans '', led by XXXX XXXX as the Loan Originator. 


Leading up to the rate lock-in, I was provided confusing, mixed information about seller credits, where I was told by the Sales Manager that I could likely get my closing costs covered completely by the seller by increasing the purchase price to offset the seller 's credit. This sounded great, as I was hoping to put all the cash towards at 25 % + down payment only, while having the seller cover all the one-time closing costs. After a few days already being in contract, I found out that the original loan estimates and seller credits were not feasible, as there is a 2 % cap on seller 's credit for investment properties. Yes, I could have done more research coming in to know such a cap existed, but I was explicitly advised to make an offer that was not possible. 


The other nebulous action that this team took right from our first conversation, was providing enticing rates below 6 %, even though the PAR rate was above 7 % for investment properties at the time. As a less experienced investor, they did not explain that there were large point buy-downs built in right from the start. I ( somewhat naively ) asked the Sales Manager how they were able to provide a rate so much lower than the other lender I was considering, to which they said, " To be honest, I don't really care what other lenders are offering. We know we offer the best. '' This is not an exact quote, and I do not have proof of this, so I understand it carries little weight. But I do remember that moment vividly, as it reflected the salesperson 's quick and frank confidence. My other lender that I nearly selected did not mention the seemingly unlimited seller credits, nor did he start our conversation with the heavily bought-down interest rate. In retrospect, I now know that the other lender was not skipping any steps to get me to the right decision, and would have been the more prudent choice to step through each decision with. I understand I could have walked away at any moment, but I had committed in my mind to securing the purchase of this property, so it would be difficult to back out at this time and start over. 


With this background in mind, when my offer was accepted, it included {$20000.00} in seller 's credits, which was more than double the 2 % maximum for this investment property. Yet somehow, for the next month as we worked through inspection and repair negotiations, revised closing documents continued to have this {$20000.00} appear in closing disclosures, or other over-inflated credit amounts that were clearly above 2 %. I had asked them on multiple occasions if they would be willing to cover some of the costs as a courtesy, due to the multiple errors I'd faced. They said they would, but it was done in a very nebulous way that was not clearly itemized. Therefore, I thought that the over-inflated seller credit amount itemized in loan estimates was actually just showing that the lender had combined some of their credits with the seller credits that I'd originally been promised, as a courtesy for the mistake. However, it turned out that that all the over-inflated seller credits were true errors, and not the lender 's attempting to provide courtesy coverage of costs. I repeatedly asked if they could provide a straight forward, itemized lender 's credit, or cover my appraisal fee in some way. No one could give me a straight answer for days, until finally the VP of Lending called me and explained that the 2 % cap applies to all parties, not just the seller credit. So finally it was clear why they could not provide a courtesy lender credit, after multiple days were lost in back and forth confusion and incorrect documents. Up until nearly a month into the process, they were still providing disclosures with overinflated seller 's credits. We were working with a slower-moving corporate i-Buyer as the seller, and so having to correct the offer and clarify loan estimates likely costed us days in negotiations with the seller. 


While this team was not the only reason the escrow period took longer than anyone expected, the ambiguity in their terms and mistakes made in their processing ultimately costed me time, and money. This brings me to the final point of this complaint. The lock-in agreement that I signed, had no mention of the fees that would be incurred with lock-in rate extensions. Yet, as the lock-in rate was nearing its expiration, the only person that mentioned the expiration was my realtor. No one from the lending team reminded me that the rate was expiring soon, nor did they notify me that I was being charged daily fees once the rate did ultimately expire, and needed to be " extended ''. Extensions are commonplace in real estate, and no where did it mention that " extension '' meant " daily extension fees ''. After I'd already been quietly charged 2 days worth of extension fees, the team finally contacted me via text near close of business on Friday, asking if I could sign closing documents via a notary that very evening, in order to prevent further extension fees. This left me no time to organize the signing, so I worked with Title to schedule a Saturday signing. Then, the lenders informed the Title company that they would need to redraw documents ( without telling me ), in order to add the next day 's extension fees to the the closing costs. However, the team did not make the time to redraw the documents before Saturday, so we instead had to push the notary signing until Monday, adding 3 extra days of daily extension fees, despite my readiness to sign on Saturday. Due to this delayed signing that was out of my hands, I asked if they would cover the daily extension fees as a courtesy for those days, to which they very directly declined to do so, with no rationale. Then, when I probed for a reason, they blamed the lock-in rate expiration on my repair negotiation delays, and felt no reason to cover the fees as a courtesy, taking no responsibility for at least a portion of the delays. 


To be clear, I do not expect them to cover all the extension fees, just the days of Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, since those 3 extra days were added even though I had agreed to sign sooner. At this point, it was clear they were irritated with my request, as I'd asked for courtesy multiple times throughout the escrow period. However being irritated with a client should not rationalize burdening the client with undue financial costs. Ultimately, this entire lending experience bordered on negligence, as almost all communication after the initial sales pitch, I had to initiate contact and request corrections, or clarification of what I was looking at. This team works fast, which may seem good at the surface to get the deal, but too fast may lead to errors and neglect.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation