Consumer complaint received 2023-08-20
Company: Real Title Agency, LLC
State: OH
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Closing on a mortgage

Complaint:
I sold a residential property utilizing the services of a title company. After the buyer and I had signed a Purchase Agreement, the buyers lender recommended the title company. After we worked through the inspection and other matters, the closing date was set, and the title company scheduled my appointment to sign paperwork. A prominent feature of the Purchase Agreement was that the buyer and I would split the closing costs : The costs attributed to the Closing of the Property shall be the responsibility of both Parties shared equally. [ See Residential Purchase Agreement, pages 1 & 2 ] The day before the signing the escrow officer from the title company called to say that she was cancelling my signing appointment because she did not yet have the figures from the lender, and she would need those since we would be splitting the loan fees. I explained that this was not my intention, and I did not believe this was the intention of the buyer. She contacted the buyer, and he told her the same. The escrow officer was aware that both parties were in agreement : the buyer was to shoulder the costs pertaining to the loan. [ See Escrow Officer email XX/XX/XXXX ] The escrow officer then asked us to create an addendum to our Purchase Agreement, so the title company would not be compelled to split the loan costs. She provided a template, the buyer prepared the document, and the buyer and I signed it. [ See Addendum ] The need for the addendum and the cancellation of my XX/XX/XXXX signing appointment seemed contrived, since the Purchase Agreement clearly states, Buyer agrees to pay all fees for processing of the loan application. [ See Purchase Agreement, page 2, part VI item F ] While we were working out the addendum, the escrow officer also asked me about the tenants at the property. I explained that the tenants had moved out on XX/XX/XXXX, and their rent was paid through the day they moved out. [ See Email thread regarding tenants ] I had already filled out a pre-closing form for the title company, stating that the tenants would be moved out before the closing date. The tenants/rent should not have been a factor in the closing of the property. 

The signing appointment was rescheduled for the following day, XX/XX/XXXX. 
At the signing, I noticed that there was no information on the paperwork about the 50/50 split. Line items had only a description and amount. [ See XXXX XXXX XXXX statement XX/XX/XXXX. ] The notary public handling the signing called the escrow officer on my behalf. The escrow officer indicted that some of the items were split, other items were not such as the county transfer tax. I pointed out that the transfer tax ( among other charges ) were supposed to be split ; she indicated that I had signed that away with the addendum. I found this comment to be unsavory, and not true : The addendum was created to clarify that the buyer was to pay all of the loan costs ; the addendum did not negate that the other costs were to be split. 

The property closed on Friday, XX/XX/XXXX. On the weekend, I noticed some other irregularities on the paperwork. For example, there was a {$330.00} title policy adjustment added to my costs. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I went to the Title Company to pick up my check, and speak with the escrow officer about the irregularities. When the receptionist asked if there was anything she could help with, I asked about the {$330.00} charge. She stated that it was for prorated rent. I explained that the tenants had already moved out and rent was paid only through the end of their tenancy. 

When I spoke with the escrow officer, she quickly became uneasy, condescending, and then hostile in her manner. She said that the {$330.00} did NOT have anything to do with prorated rent. She was so emphatic about this she crossed out the line that made mention of it on the Closing Disclosure. [ See Closing Disclosure, pages 1 and 2 ] However, she was not able to explain the charge. 

When I questioned the other charges, or how the charges were split, she answered by making critical remarks, such as ( paraphrased to the best of my memory, and my husbands memory ) If you didnt understand what you were signing, you should not have signed it. and, This is why people should NOT do For Sale By Owner. and, You should have had a lawyer. In an ironic twist, it appears the escrow officer was set on proving her point : The reason I needed a lawyer was to protect myself from unscrupulous people.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with monetary relief