Consumer complaint received 2019-02-07
Company: CIT BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: NY
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Closing on a mortgage

Complaint:
This is a complaint against One West Bank , Inc., a subsidiary of CIT Bank. The complaint involves this bank 's practices when it comes to locking in a mortgage rate. 

My wife and I received our first closing disclosure on XX/XX/XXXX, which noted the amount we were responsible for with regard to the point ( s ) we needed to pay to buy down our loan rate. As of this date, there was no issue with the amount shown on the CD as this was consistent with the rate lock that was applied on XX/XX/XXXX. As of XX/XX/XXXX, we had submitted what we needed to close on our loan. Just as we were slated to get through underwriting, we were notified that the bank wanted proof that the solar panels, attached to the roof of the property we were attempting to purchase, were fully paid off. Both our attorney, and the sellers ' attorney, informed the bank that the title search came back clear and that there were no encumbrances against clean title. 

Despite being told this, One West Bank refused to accept this as validation. They proceeded to tell us, and our attorney ( s ), that they wanted a letter/statement stating that the panels were owned free and clear. The sellers of our property needed to get the purchase contract, from the solar panel company, for the bank which took a week to receive as the contract needed to be mailed ( not faxed or scanned in ). Mind you that while this is all going on, our rate lock was set to expire on XX/XX/XXXX. Once we received the contract, we forwarded it to the bank which showed that, although the panels weren't fully paid for yet, they had no liens or security interests against them. This was consistent with what the title search showed in the first place. However, the bank again chose to fight us, and our respective attorneys, on this for what seemed to be another few days. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, One West Bank extended our rate lock without our permission. In doing so, they also added a 0.125 % lock extension cost to our closing disclosure which added another {$370.00} to our closing costs. On, XX/XX/XXXX, after receiving our second closing disclosure on XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted XXXX XXXX about the increase in points. XXXX had been the primary contact for us during this process, albeit not the only individual we dealt with. I questioned XXXX about the increase in cost, and I pointed out to her that it must be some mistake. At this point, she informed me that it indeed wasn't a mistake, and that it was due to the rate lock being extended for a week, until XX/XX/XXXX. She also informed me that they were going to extend it again on XX/XX/XXXX. 

I informed XXXX that not only did she not have our permission to extend the rate lock, but that we also weren't interested in extending it since mortgage rates had come down significantly from their XXXX highs. In fact, the rate could have been upwards of 0.25 % -0.35 % less than our original lock rate based on what I had seen in noted financial literature. I also asked XXXX what the current rate was, on the phone and in email, and she refused to divulge this information to me because " it didn't matter since we wouldn't be eligible for a lower rate without starting a whole new application and waiting 30 days to 'lock a rate in again ' ''. I explained to XXXX that we were under no legal obligation to extend a rate lock, and that it was at our discretion to do so to protect ourselves from rising rates. As it stood, and because the bank took unnecessary time to move our loan to closing, it benefited us to not keep the rate locked any longer. There was no argument about what we had paid up until XX/XX/XXXX, however there was a major disagreement about what occurred after that. 

I informed XXXX that what she was doing was highly unethical, if not down right illegal. She used the threat of pulling our loan from us if we didn't maintain the rate lock that we were in, one which we never agreed to extend in the first place. I informed her, through email and over the phone, that we wanted our rate to float freely until closing. XXXX told me, " that's not the way this works, you can't allow a rate to float freely this close to closing ''. I told XXXX that we had no firm closing date, and that her bank was repeatedly delaying our closing through numerous missteps on their end. Hence, we wished to allow our rate to float freely since it would've been much more conducive to us for this to be the case. She couldn't have told me, on XX/XX/XXXX, when we were closing on our house because there was no date set, nor did she have a firm date in hand. Our loan hadn't even gotten out of underwriting yet as of XX/XX/XXXX, so her argument that we were " too close to closing '' was moot. 

Based on her actions, XXXX caused us great financial hardship by not allowing us to take the lower rate we would have been entitled to. Her manager, XXXX XXXX, spoke to my wife, and he was attempting to explain himself in this situation. He attempted to explain to her the process involved when they lock a rate in, and from what I gather he was referring to purchasing some type of forward contract, or interest rate swap. I didn't personally speak to him, but this is the gist that I got from her when I spoke to her. Regardless, and according to their own admissions, that contract expired on XX/XX/XXXX, and again they were never given permission to extend the rate lock, verbally or written. 

We have all email chains from our communications with members of this bank. Amongst other things, they seemed to be quite ignorant to New York real estate law. Our attorney even needed to apprise them of this in an email, going as far as to tell them they didn't understand how real estate law worked in New York. We have all supporting emails to back up everything that was stated in this complaint, a fact that both XXXX and XXXX was made aware of on XX/XX/XXXX.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation