Consumer complaint received 2015-08-01
Company: WATERSTONE MORTGAGE CORPORATION
State: MN
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: FHA mortgage
Issue: Application, originator, mortgage broker

Complaint:
I am claiming gross incompetence and neglect of duties of XXXX XXXX with Waterstone Mortgage because she did not read her own company prepared application and tried to sell a loan product she did not fully understand. I would have never started this loan process had I known that I would only have received a 70 % Loan to Value ( LTV ) of my loan. I have wasted time and energy to gather documents for this loan. This has added unnecessary stress and interest expense to my life due to such a disastrous process and incompetence. This could have all been avoided based on my application dated XXXX XXXX if XXXX would have read the application. It could have further been avoided if I was informed of the decrease in LTV on XXXX XXXX, which is when XXXX knew of the decrease. I, however, was not informed until XXXX XXXX ( thru an automated email disclosure ) of this reduction in loan to value. She was negligent for not timely informing me of the reduction in LTV and trying to push the loan to close without properly informing me. Please see details below : On XXXX XXXX the process officially began by submitting an application thru their online system. 
On XXXX XXXX, I discovered the maximum Loan To Value ( LTV ) for this program was 75 % and wanted to confirm that I was eligible for this 75 % LTV with Waterstone. Waterstone Mortgage confirmed that I would receive 75 % LTV. 
On XXXX XXXX, I sent a spreadsheet detailing the number of properties I had, how they were titled, and what bank the loans were with to assist Waterstone with how my properties were detailed and how they related to my credit report. 
On XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX contacted me to discuss my rate and LTV based on my application that is dated XXXX XXXX. XXXX confirmed a 75 % LTV and loan closing by XXXX XXXX. In my opinion, the loan application clearly shows that I have at least XXXX mortgages in my own name from my credit report. The spreadsheet that I sent on XXXX XXXX also clearly shows how many loans I have and how they are titled. That spreadsheet shows XXXX XXXX mortgages, with XXXX in my own name ( and now would be XXXX with the new property I 'm trying to finance using their delayed financing ). The entire loan process should have ended here where I should have been informed that due to having more than XXXX financed properties, I would only receive 70 % LTV. 
On XXXX XXXX, I was sent a Good Faith Estimate ( GFE ) showing a loan amount of {$77000.00} and interest rate of 5.125 % based on a 75 % LTV. This GFE matched the discussion of rate and terms laid out by XXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXX. 
On XXXX XXXX, I received another automated request for me to sign more disclosures. It was thru this automated email that I read the new GFE detailing the new loan amount of {$72000.00} and rate of 5 %. This is based on a 70 % LTV. 
This set off a number of emails from me asking why I was not informed of this change to 70 % and why it was an automated disclosure process ( rather than a phone call ) that told me. To me, this is a bait and switch on the rate and LTV. Waterstone and XXXX XXXX tried to " sneak '' this process by me in hopes that I would not read the new GFE. Waterstone ( specifically the underwriters ) said because I had more than XXXX financed properties in my own name, that I was limited to 70 % LTV. 
On XXXX XXXX, XXXX tried to blame this XXXX financed properties restriction on the fact that my loans were unclear on how they are titled. I pointed to the spreadsheet I provided on XXXX XXXX, along with her company prepared application dated XXXX XXXX, that clearly showed how many properties I had and how they were titled. XXXX openly admitted that she did not review my company prepared application, but rather relied on an internal spreadsheet. 
All the above headaches, stress, and interest expense from not closing timely, could have been avoided if XXXX would have read the application.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief