Consumer complaint received 2021-07-14
Company: Synovus Bank
State: GA
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Closing on a mortgage

Complaint:
Complaint overview : This complaint is regarding what I intended to be a 30-year conventional mortgage for my primary residence ( closing date XX/XX/XXXX ) with Synovus Bank. In XX/XX/XXXX I learned, completely by chance, that I was placed in a commercial loan for a non-owner-occupied residential rental property used for business purposes. This loan matures with a large balloon payment tomorrow ( XX/XX/XXXX ). I did not apply for such a product, did not knowingly or willingly agree to such a product, never had any intention of renting the property and had every intention of living in the property with my two children as a primary residence as I have done. I have so many questions about how this happened and began my inquiries in mid-May. I was promised a 3-month extension while I/they investigate, but later XXXX XXXX made that conditional upon my applying for a residential mortgage with Synovus through normal channels and with normal costs and inconveniences. I was also informed that escalating the complaint or speaking to someone in a higher position would mean turning my case over to asset management. In an effort to cooperate, I applied for the mortgage, received a loan package that is not a guarantee of approval, and was asked to sign an intent to proceed, but I am being met with endless delays regarding the extension on the first loan as well as an unwillingness to provide loan-related documents, which is deeply concerning as the loan matures tomorrow. I have requested in writing via email and am requesting here again that they refrain from discarding or destroying any documents and communication related to this loan now and in the future until we come to a mutual agreement regarding this case. 

Synopsis of my story/argument : First, I want to establish my stance that : If a residential purchase loan is for a 1-4 unit family dwelling, even if it is going to be used as a rental property, owner-occupied or non-owner-occupied, and is extended to a natural person ( or even an LLC in most cases ), and is secured by that residential property as collateral, it is still considered to be a consumer loan, not a commercial loan, unless it passes a 5-step test, which must be considered by the lender. The criteria is specific, and I in no way meet it. Even if I had asked for a commercial loan, told them I would use it for business purposes and that it would be non-owner-occupied ( I didnt do any of the above ), the lender should have determined it actually does not qualify for a business purpose commercial loan. The reason to include the Business Purpose Statement is mostly to avoid providing disclosures and not be subject to RESPA or TILA in most cases. I received no disclosures of any sort ( and no GFE ), but a HUD-1 settlement statement was used at closing without page 3, which I assume was because there was not a Good Faith Estimate to compare against the settlement statement. It is obvious that I did not write the date on the Business Purpose Statement in the closing attorneys file. That is absolutely not my handwriting. Why was it prefilled by computer and another persons handwriting, except for my signature? Why didnt they just have me write the date? Was the rest of the page covered up when I signed it? Did the attorney tell me I was signing something different from what it actually was? I dont know the answer to these questions, but I do know I wouldnt have signed it without some act of gross negligence on the part of the attorney, lender or both ( at the very least ).

Though bank documents have been requested, Synovus has not provided any documents besides a scanned copy of page 3 of the loan note. They will not provide the wet signed original of that document or any other. They have not provided copies of my application, the loan officers mortgage transaction journal, any communication showing my intention to obtain a rental income property and wouldnt occupy the property ( I moved in that day, never lived anywhere else, and never solicited renters nor had renters ). They have not provided any documentation explaining the break in continuity between loan officers, and why only one name is on any documents- a person with whom I have never met or discussed a loan, despite a document he says he took face to face and I signed ( that is not the case ). That document also provided a loan officer number that doesnt match his NMLS number, which I firmly believe he would have been required to provide under the SAFE Act for the reason stated earlier in this document : it should not be a commercial loan, but a consumer loan. He was registered through the NMLS at the time ; however, so it seems he did choose to provide a number, just not his NMLS number according to the NMLS Consumer Search Database. What is that number he provided? I never applied for anything with XXXX XXXX. I firmly believe I did not sign those documents and am reviewing them against many signatures for proof of copy/paste forgery ; but even if I cant find the proof, I would never have signed anything saying Im renting and not occupying the property willingly or knowingly, so gross negligence is most definitely involved here at the least. Not one person in that closing room was under the impression this was anything other than a conventional 30-year residential mortgage. There is even a contingency in the contract to purchase stating that, which speaks volumes about my intentions, especially when paired with email communications I had with the original loan officers regarding this mortgage, never referring to it as anything other than that. We were prepared to close twice prior to this with the previous loan officers ( no longer working for Synovus ) before XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX ever showed up in the process, but we had to postpone for reasons irrelevant to this case. Synovus hasnt provided any communication with me that shows I was ever informed of any changes to my intended product, nor any documents that show I applied for such product, nor any documents supporting their decision to place me in such an inappropriate loan product. In addition, since I believe this should have never qualified as a commercial loan in the first place, Regulation Z is expanded in Georgia to state that a bank can not extend a loan with the intent to foreclose, which can be proven by the bank not determining that the borrower has the ability to repay the loan. There is no way any reasonable person could have determined an ability to repay in my case. I was putting a majority of my cash on hand into the down payment for the property and certainly did not turn in any kind of business plan with rents, property management, costs, etc.

My local Synovus representative was told after contacting the Loan Vault and Legal departments that they would probably have to require me to have an attorney subpoena the documents. Im not sure she meant to tell me that, but she did. She has said this was supposed to be an easy thing, and she was essentially blindsided by the difficulty she has had in providing these documents and doesnt understand what is going on. The loan officer who started this process for me in XXXX of XXXX, and is now employed by another bank, said he doesnt know what happened, but he was especially concerned that they had me sign documents stating I wouldnt occupy the home and that they evidently shoehorned me into a relationship loan product without informing me, and without my consent, between the previous two times we were supposed to close and the actual closing. My real estate agent has owned her business here for decades and said this is the screwyist thing shes ever seen in her business.

I believe it is evident that there was not an ounce of good faith anywhere in this entire closing/final lending process.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation