Consumer complaint received 2015-07-13
Company: Ditech Financial LLC
State: NJ
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional fixed mortgage
Issue: Application, originator, mortgage broker

Complaint:
The respondent was the broker for my mortgage to purchase my property. The transaction closed on XXXX/XXXX/2014. Prior to closing on any property, I had been given lock-in of the mortgage interest rate that lasted anywhere from XXXX days, which was done prior to closing. My mortgage broker/loan officer, XXXX XXXX, an employee of the respondent, left the loan float without offering the option to lock. In fact, the lock-in documents I have were executed at the closing table and were for a XXXX day period. Therefore, he left the loan to have a floating interest rate. This caused my interest rate to increase from the quoted 4.25 % to 4.5 % and was reflected on the HUD documents. This increase caused me to incur {$13000.00} in extra interest costs if the loan is carried to term. I was angry but remained silent. Six to nine months later, XXXX XXXX contacted me to refinance at 3.8 %. I explained that I was upset about the previous loan and that if he was contacting me I would help him out to earn a XXXX commission if several conditions were met : 1 ) Absolutely XXXX closing costs or refunding of the escrow 2 ) No increase in the loan amount, and 3 ) the interest rate quoted was locked in. When XXXX XXXX ran the loan and failed to meet these pre-defined parameters, he became aggressive. I demanded and spoke with the CEO XXXX XXXX who told me he could not make the loan because they would not make any money with those parameters. I explained in detail what happened with the original mortgage and the failure to lock in the rate. Because the position of loan officer, is a variable compensation position, there is an inherent conflict of interest between any loan officer 's personal priorities and that of the borrower. Because of XXXX XXXX 's flaunting of an expensive personal taste ( golf outings, high end automobiles, and vacations ), I felt that his interests were conflicted. As such the terms provided were best for Greentree Mortgage and not the customer. 

Since this time, I spoke with other mortgage lenders and explained this situation. The mortgage lenders were with XXXX XXXX, XXXX and XXXX XXXX. Both, independent of the other, stated that the practices outlined above are highly unusual. Both lenders encouraged me to file this complaint and educated me on the CFPB. 

I have received calls from XXXX XXXX claiming that I was causing him to lose his job and making him look bad to his boss. He stated " I hope you never see me in XXXX. '' The tone of his comments could have been understood/misunderstood to be in a threatening tone of voice. In response to my demands for a refund and a confidentiality agreement ( which would render me silent ), he threatened to call the XXXX XXXX Police Department and file charges against me for extortion. I explained to XXXX XXXX the definition of " disgorgement of ill-gotten gains '' and how my demand for a refund is not extortion. Details of this call were able to be recorded because New Jersey is a one-party consent state when it comes to recording telephone conversations.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation