Consumer complaint received 2021-09-16
Company: INTERFIRST MORTGAGE COMPANY
State: FL
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage

Complaint:
The following is a brief and concise statement of the facts regarding the alleged violation : Complainant XXXX XXXX identified himself as a XXXX, from XXXX  XXXX descent, belonging to a class of persons whom the Fair Housing Act ( the Act ) protects from unlawful discrimination because of his race, XXXX, and national origin. 
Complainant applied to refinance his mortgage loan with Respondent Interfirst Mortgage Company ( Respondent Interfirst ), to take advantage of the low interest rate and mortgage insurance, for his XXXX, located at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX County ), Florida. Respondent Interfirst utilized Respondent XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Respondent XXXX  ), who hired Respondent XXXX XXXX Appraisal Services , Inc. 
( Respondent XXXX ) to conduct the property appraisal. Complainants contacts were Respondent ( s ) XXXX XXXX Mortgage Loan Originator, who is presumed white, and XXXX XXXX, Appraiser, who is XXXX American. 
Complainant alleged on XX/XX/XXXX, Respondent XXXX appraised his home for $ XXXX, three months after XXXX  XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  ) appraised it for $ XXXX. Additionally, Complainant alleged that after hearing his accent, and before even entering his home, Respondent XXXX asked inappropriate questions such as, Is this really your house, what do you do for a living to buy such a big house, where do you come from, and for how long have you been in this country? According to Complainant, after spending less than 10 minutes inside his home, Respondent XXXX departed, and then parked in front of the neighbors house that had just sold for {$430000.00}. Respondent XXXX  remained for more than 30 minutes with the neighbor ( white ), whose house was similar in size and configuration, required extensive repairs, but had not been renovated. Complainant stated his house had recently been renovated with a new roof, new kitchens, and appliances, etc. 
Additionally, Complainant observed that another triplex next door was also being appraised at the same time as his property. This neighbors ( XXXX  ) triplex was appraised at $ XXXX. Complainant alleged he disputed the appraised value of $ XXXX and asked Respondent XXXX to explain the significant differences between the XXXX  appraisal and Respondent Interfirsts appraisal only three months later. Respondent XXXX reportedly did not have an answer. Complainant proposed to Respondent XXXX that he would pay for an independent appraiser, and if the house appraised at $ XXXX or above, Respondent Interfirst would reimburse his appraisal fees ; however, if his house appraised for $ XXXX or below, he would accept Respondent Interfirsts decision and move forward with the mortgage insurance. Respondent XXXX initially agreed ; however, several days later, on XX/XX/XXXX, Respondent Interfirst denied Complainants mortgage loan request, stating it was unable to verify occupancy. Complainant, who has lived in the home since XXXX, stated that Respondent Interfirst has all documentation on file to prove his occupancy, and proof of occupancy was never requested. Complainant immediately disputed this denial ; however, Respondent XXXX failed to respond. Complainant believes Respondent XXXX non-response was based upon his belief that Complainant could not do anything because he is a foreigner. Complainant stated that he contacted another mortgage company, and on XX/XX/XXXX, his home was appraised at $ XXXX. Complainant believes Respondents collectively discriminated against him based upon race, XXXX, and national origin, in violation of the Act.

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 monetary relief