Consumer complaint received 2020-09-22
Company: Rocket Mortgage, LLC
State: CO
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Closing on a mortgage

Complaint:
We closed on our home refinance back on Sunday, XX/XX/2020 ( XXXX closing ). However, on Monday XX/XX/2020, almost a month after our closing, we received a letter on the mail from our lender requesting we sign an enclosed backdated note which contained different clauses from the original eNote we signed back on XX/XX/2020, but with the same terms. Upon receiving the letter with the enclosed second note, we contacted our lender to inquire as to the reason for this. During our conversations we were told that they ( lender ) did not receive the note from the title company/settlement agent. We proceeded to contact the title company to request their assistance. On Thursday XX/XX/2020 the lender sent an email indicating that they had found the eNote and that the issue had been resolved. This information was confirmed on the MERS registry, where lender is listed as the Note holder ( both the Servicer and the Investor ). 

Sadly, late afternoon, on Friday XX/XX/2020, the lender sends an email stating the eNote is no longer acceptable. The lender, once again, proceeds to request for me to sign a second original note that is backdated, containing different clauses ( yet the same agreed upon terms ). I respond to this email requesting information as to the reason for the request. The only response I obtain is an email stating : " the eNote is not acceptable because it is not vaulted in our system '' ( which seems to contradict what the MERS registry states ). Attached to that email, the lender adds a copy of the Compliance Agreement, and again, requests for me to sign the second note and return. 

I immediately called the title/settlement agent for assistance and information. Some time after I had spoken to the agent, I received a call from the lender. The person on the phone proceeded to explain that as per the signed Compliance Agreement, lender has the right to request any document and/or any signature from me for the following two years. No useful information was provided during this conversation. At the end of the phone call, lender stated that someone else, who understood the issue, would contact me. I received an email later that afternoon from another lender 's representative stating that if I had any additional questions to please reach out to this representative directly. 

I am using my best effort in understanding what the issue is so that I may assist in a way that is satisfactory to both lender and I. However, I have been unable to obtain a clear answer about what the supposed issue seems to be. 

I have been advised to not sign a second " original '' promissory note, since this could be constructed as a legal obligation for a second repayment of the total loan amount. Even the note itself instructs to " [ Sign Original Only ] ''. 

If this were any other document in the loan package, I would not be thinking twice about complying with the lender 's request. However, due to the serious and binding nature of the specific document being requested for me to sign a second time ( a transferable security instrument ), I find it reasonable for me to obtain clear information as to the reason for this. In my limited experience, this situation seems pretty irregular, and I am very uncomfortable knowing the risk and possible negative future consequences this could bring if I were to sign the second note.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation