Consumer complaint received 2019-02-12
Company: Global Equity Finance, Inc.
State: CO
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Closing on a mortgage

Complaint:
On XX/XX/XXXX, I had a rate lock with XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  ) for a cash-out loan in the amount of {$190000.00}, with a 30-year fixed rate of 4.375 %. My total closing costs were estimated at {$4700.00} on line D of my Loan Estimate. I locked this rate. 

Shortly after, I was contacted by XXXX with a refinance offer where I would get an initial cash-out refinance, promising a secondary refinance at a sub 4 % rate with a long-term rate lock, and with the secondary loan being of no-cost to me. After some skepticism, I was re-assured that rates were priced through the end of the year since Global is a direct lender who can set their own rates. The no-cost refinance is also advertised on Globals website. I was assured that I would be able to get a 180-day rate locklikely at 3.8 % in XX/XX/XXXX, as soon as I had paid down some of my higher interest student loans ( which was the intention of the refinance ). I cancelled the XXXX loan on XX/XX/XXXX, and have emails and credit card statements supporting both the rate lock and the refund. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a Closing Disclosure with a loan amount of {$190000.00}, with a 30-year fixed rate of 4.99 % with the Total Loan Costs on line D coming to {$5000.00}. This is the loan that had a closing date of XX/XX/XXXX. It should be clear that I accepted the terms of the XX/XX/XXXX loan because of the promises made for a long term rate lock at a considerably lower rate. 

XXXX did not lock the rate in XX/XX/XXXX, and between XX/XX/XXXXand XX/XX/XXXX I tried to push forward with the secondary loan, during which time lots of back and forth conversation happened. I have texts of correspondence during this time. On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX claimed to have locked 4.25 % for 180 days the week prior to our messages, indicating that it should be able to go lower. 

On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX reiterated that, worse case scenario we have the XXXX and hoping that we can go lower, specifying that it should be able to get to XXXX. XXXX gave several excuses as to why the loan could not be closed until earliest XX/XX/XXXX, which was news to me but which he should have known the entire time. 

On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX informed me via phone call that the 4.25 % rate lock in XX/XX/XXXX had only been a 30-day lock, and that rates had since gone up and I could no longer get the 4.25 % rate. He said that he would lock a 4.5 % float-down rate at no cost to me, and would get me the paperwork by the end of the week. I had not received any correspondence or paperwork by XX/XX/XXXX, so I called Global and requested to speak to XXXX supervisor, with the intention of requesting a different loan officer. I was transferred to XXXX and left a message, which was never returned. I had requested to switch officers previously when XXXX mentioned that he had personal issues causing delays in correspondence, but he assured me that he could handle it and refused to transfer my account. 

On XX/XX/XXXX the loan was again delayed, which I found out was because XXXX was using my income from XX/XX/XXXX. This income pre-dated our business together, and there is no reason that XXXX should have been using that income. He pulled my credit without getting my permission, without notifying me, and without locking a rate. I was notified of an inquiry by a credit monitoring agency, and called the requester to learn that XXXX had been the one to make the inquiry. He apologized, but could not provide an instance when I gave him permission for the inquiry. I was unpreparednor did I believe it necessary considering his numerous promisesto contact other lenders during the mortgage window. XXXX is now demanding that I produce proof of a lower rate lock in order to honor his original promises. 

On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX claimed to lock at 4.5 %, which I confirmed via text, but which also seemed to be untrue since he is now claiming that 4.625 % is the lowest rate that I can get without additional costs to me Throughout this process XXXX has repeatedly claimed that I would be able to get a sub 4 % rate and also to have locked at 4.25 %, but those claims were untrue. XXXX had also indicated that I could get a float down loan, but that was determined to be untrue without financial costs to me ultimately negating the benefit of a secondary refinance. Now XXXX claims that he is unable to offer the free refinance without a higher interest rate, which has none of the benefit that he reiterated again and again as his selling point in XX/XX/XXXX, and which is not as advertised on Globals website. This situation negates the cost benefit of the refinance and forces me to stay in a loan with a much higher rate that I would have had with my original AIM loan. 

On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX emailed indicating that a 30-year loan wasnt possibly and that we had discussed that before. I did not recall having discussed that at all, and when questioned about the occasion on which we spoke about it XXXX was suddenly able to get a 30 year loan. He also indicated at that time that a 3.875 % loan was possible with 2 points. This is the loan that I expected, with no points, as per his promise. Such a loan was clearly still possible in XX/XX/XXXX. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I finally received a Closing Disclosure with a loan amount of {$200000.00}, with a 30-year fixed rate of 4.375 %. This comes with an additional Loan Cost of {$4400.00}. This represents a total Loan Cost of {$4700.00} + 6-mo in differential interest ( ~ {$600.00} ) more than if I had simply kept the original cash-out loan offer through AIM, which I had cancelled due to Dustins promises. 

In an attempt to remedy the situation, I informed XXXX that I had suffered some fairly straight forward financial losses due to his misunderstanding of rate lock policies and/or inability to lock as promised. I outlined my losses and presented options for correcting the loan, which were in keeping with his many promises, but which he indicated numerous times via email that he has no intentions of doing. XXXX insists on only looking at current market rates, and neglects his original promises that 1 ) I would be able to get a 180 day rate lock in XX/XX/XXXX when rates were considerably lower than they are now, and 2 ) that he has repeatedly assured me that worse case scenario I had a rate of 4.25 % locked.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation