Consumer complaint received 2019-12-04
Company: LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC
State: CA
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage

Complaint:
We have valid reasons to believe our home was intentionally undervalued. Additionally, the incorrect threshold was used when determining whether or not we met the LTV ratio for PMI removal. 

The reason for the appraisal was to have the Property Mortgage Insurance ( PMI ) from our home removed. The lender stated that they hire the appraiser through an outside company, XXXX, which weve discovered is actually not an outside company but rather another company within XXXX. Throughout this situation, weve been given conflicting information and rules seem to continuously change. I am certain that I am not the only home that has been undervalued in effort to keep the PMI. In fact, Ive found several other homeowners whove experienced this same issue. It is not a matter of being unhappy with a fair appraisal report. Our issue is that we do not believe our home was fairly assessed. We believe the appraiser selected comparable homes low in value in order to support a lower appraised value on our home. 

Weve made several upgrades and improvements to our home since we purchased it in XX/XX/XXXX for $ XXXX. We purchased it brand new with mostly standard features. The only options we selected when we purchased was upgraded cabinets, counters and carpet padding. Since then, weve added the following : - A 192sqft city permitted in-law unit in the backyard ( fully insulated, electricity, plumbing ready, engineered wood flooring, etc ) -Plantation shutters throughout entire house -Engineered Wood flooring covering 1st level and inside in-law unit.

-Full backyard landscaping including a built-in BBQ island, fire pit and seating + concrete additions and driveway extension to enable parking a 3rd car. 

-kitchen upgrades including : marble tile, lighting, farmhouse sink, etc -additional closet shelving, painting throughout - garage painted, professional shelving and epoxy floor These upgrades/additions were pointed out to the appraiser during the appraisal. When asked if he needed the permit for the in-law unit, he said it was not necessary. He did ask had any homes in our subdivision sold recently and I advised him of a home at XXXX XXXX XXXX which is around the corner from us that sold on XX/XX/XXXX for $ XXXX. 

When we received the report, he labeled the in-law suite as a game room. We believe this was done in order to undermine to value and eliminate it from being considered a substantial improvement. The report states that he could not locate any homes sold within 180days within my subdivision which is false. He was made aware of the comparable home sold on XX/XX/XXXX located 0.2miles from my home. This home is the exact color, model, square footage, bed/bath count, but has a smaller lot by 100sqft. This would be the most comparable home to my property considering the location, similarity, and upgrades. However, he excluded this home and used comps I believe supported a lower value. He ultimately valued my home at $ XXXX making my LTV 77 %. I contacted XXXX to dispute this value and was given 3 options : pay for a new appraisal, pay down the principle, or provide them with a list of upgrades/improvements and XXXX comps. After communicating with a supervisor, XXXX XXXX, she instructed me to send the list of upgrades/improvements and one comp. She emphasized that my upgrades and improvements may not be counted under their guidelines, which does not make sense and Ive discovered is false after reading XXXX XXXX definition of substantial improvements. She stated that my homes value would be determined by surrounding comps. So, I sent the list and the comp at XXXX XXXX XXXX. About 2 to 3 weeks later, the same supervisor called to advise me of the denial again. This time the reason was that the comp provided was considered an outlier home with upgrades and improvements. I replied, how can the comp be excluded because of its upgrades, yet my homes upgrades and improvements were not considered???? She agreed that it made no sense. Ive written countless letters and emails to management, and the most recent correspondence from XXXX mentioned that my upgrades/improvements added no market value due to the inability to find comps with the same features. I've also sent the 6 additional comparable homes, however I have not received a response. The denial letter I received states that the appraisal is no longer valid after XX/XX/XXXX. I believe their failure to respond to my complaints is to prolong this dispute past the deadline. 

It is my belief that the value of my home was poorly calculated in order to keep my LTV above 75 % in order to keep the PMI. The LTV threshold also should be 80 % or less because Ive made substantial  improvements on my home, yet XXXX is using the 75 % LTV. According to XXXX XXXX   Guidelines, MI termination requests based on current value with property improvements, have adjusted the loan-to-value ( LTV ) threshold from 75 % or less to 80 % or less with the borrower providing examples of what are considered substantial improvements. Substantial Improvements, as defined by XXXX XXXX, are those that impact the collateral value by improving function, modernizing, enhancing market appeal, and/or extending its useful life. However XXXX has disregarded my upgrades in improvements when determining the LTV threshold. 

This dispute has been extremely stressful for my family and I. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of complaints with every agency and forum on how XXXX/Lakeview, as other lenders, use their power to create their own rules at the customers expense. They get away with situations, like mines, where requests are denied just because they can do so. XXXX/Lakeview WANTS to keep the customer paying the PMI, so I am not surprised that they will find any reason to deny the request to remove it. XXXX is a XXXX ( the outside company used to contract appraisers ) company. They work together and the appraisers ultimately work for them. My dispute never went to an outside unbiased company. The denial was a biased decision within the very same company. Im contacting the CFPB to hopefully see the unfairness in what this bank and many others continue to show customers. Not only is my home valued poorly, but I believe the 80 % LTV threshold should be used. I know that I am just one of thousands of cases that you come across, but I pray with everything in me that you can help me with this issue. 


XXXX XXXX & XXXX XXXX

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 explanation