Consumer complaint received 2018-10-04
Company: Caliber Home Loans, Inc.
State: WA
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Closing on a mortgage

Complaint:
Thank you for your time to review. This is a complex situation. 

As part of a purchase agreement to buy a Condo, I was referred to work with Caliber Home Loans as a " preferred lender '' with the added incentive that a punitive condition in the contract of $ XXXX/day would not apply if I worked with this " preferred lender ''. 

The loan application was made in my sole name, but as required in Washington it was understood that my wife would need to sign in various appropriate loan and title documents As part of the process, Caliber credit approved the loan and ordered an appraisal in due course. The initial appraisal was developed and matched the purchase price ( {$490.00} ). However, after reviewing the appraisal, it was determined that the appraiser had incorrectly assumed that the unit included ownership of a parking spot. As identical units with parking were selling for $ XXXX more than those without parking, this was flagged for review. 

After receiving the feedback about the error, the appraiser proceeded to amend the appraisal applying an adjustment of $ XXXX for the lack of parking. However, more meaningfully, the appraiser elected to also amend unrelated valuation of the condition of the 2 offsite comps used in the valuation. The net effect was to offset impact of the parking correction. 

The appraiser was asked to explain the basis for the unrelated change, and Caliber has also been asked to do so. At no time has either party provided any satisfactory explanation for the action other than " it doesn't matter ''. 

However, this lack of explanation raised a reasonable concern with the overall integrity of the appraisal in the first place. Using reasonable logic, the appraiser would have etiher a ) left the condition as is and still simply attested that the original value held or b ) adjusted the value down by the $ XXXX assigned to parking resulting in a low appraisal. 

The implication of their choice was to avoid the low appraisal. However, the purchase agreement ( like others ) included a very balanced set of procedures to address that situation which could have been leveraged. However, instead, the appraiser ( and lender ) insisted on a proceeding with the valuation despite the obvious questions. 

As a result, my wife, with whom I am separating, and whose primary interest is to ensure that our joint assets aren't diminished expressed concern. She felt that if the appraiser maintained integrity then the property was valued at $ XXXX and that needed to be addressed and has refused to sign any documents related to the transaction if not addressed. 

However, Caliber and the appraiser both elected to ignore the logic and have proceeded with the insistence that the original value to the sole benefit of the seller ( reminder that Caliber is their " preferred lender '' ). 

As such, I advised Caliber that my wife would not be signing the documents which would result in my inability to satisfy the loan conditions. I then communicated to the seller that the agreement needed to be terminated due to lack of financing availability. As part of this termination, the seller had the right to request confirmation on 3 criteria from Caliber.

It is not yet clear, whether the seller has requested this from Caliber, but at this point, Caliber has refused to address the 3 criteria, and maintains that the loan is approved  even though they have separately acknowledged that the conditions could not be satisfied. This position that the loan is still approved, serves no other practical purpose but to benefit their preferred relationship with the seller, and create a situation whereby I am unable to terminate the agreement and be reimbursed the earnest money associated with the transaction. 

Caliber 's ( or it's appraiser ) mistakes created the issue, and not only have they failed to reasonably address the issue, they are then doubling down on it by taking a position blindly in the favor of it's preferred seller to cause financial harm to me.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation