Consumer complaint received 2016-04-22
Company: CARDINAL FINANCIAL COMPANY, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
State: CA
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional fixed mortgage
Issue: Credit decision / Underwriting

Complaint:
I am writing to express my frustration and to let you know that I intend to file a complaint with the XXXX and other regulatory agencies about the neglect and misrepresentation I received from your institution. 

I have have been a mortgage payer for almost 20 years and NEVER have been late nor have any problems paying my mortgages even in the downturn when I could have walked away from my investments like many people in the same situation in XXXX. 

I like everyone else would like the opportunity to save money and I thought that by refinancing my home that I could consolidate my debts and apply the savings towards principal reduction of my mortgage. 

Needless to say, I was SHOCKED that I was declined even with an XXXX credit score and no mortgage late what so ever. 

I went to your institution as you claim to be an industry leader, great service, and that you have excellent rates. I spoke to your loan officer and though he was thorough in the beginning, he left me hanging after he originated the loan and left me with the processor as my go-to person. 

In the interview, I asked for a 15 year and a 30 year quote and to see what the payments would be. I opted for the 15 year as I feel comfortable with the payment terms and the worse case scenario we can do a 30 year term. 

At that time he said my back end DTI as like XXXX % even with a a 15 year term. He was confident that he can get this approved so I gave him an authorization to continue. I had reservations about the cost of the appraisal even thought the LTV is only XXXX % because I am very cautious and he told me that he did n't think it will be an issue. I was explicit in my instructions that I will not pay for the appraisal until the loan is approved but he somehow he still ordered the appraisal. 

I have tried to reach out to him multiple times to see what the status of my loan. Every time I tried to call him, it will just go directly to his voice mail. I left numerous messages to call me but he never bothered and referred me to the processor. 

It was nearly 30 days before I heard from the processor stating that my DTI ( backend ) was too high. I reached out to the loan officer and gave him ammunition stating that the front end was very low and the reason the back end was too high is because I have XXXX other investment properties that I am not 100 % owner. This was fully disclosed in my loan application. One investment property was a XXXX % ownership and the other was a XXXX % ownership. I tried to explain that both investment properties were acquired in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX and that both have positive cash flow and that they are in good stating and NEVER been late even both of them were slightly under water then. 

Why would the bank decline me for this? the subject property has nothing to with these investment properties. If anything, they will just make things better because I will be able to pay down my debts. if your institution will hit me for 100 % liabilities for these investments, why could n't they give me 100 % income to compensate for the liabilities. I think this is very unfair practice and is very discriminatory to single person household who 's a co-owner of investment properties. 

Had the loan officer been more responsive, we could have saved this deal. The fact that he totally ignored me and did n't want to work with me was the straw the broke the camel 's back. Because of the time delay, I lost the rate lock and now I either had to pay the extension costs or re-apply again. I decided that I will not do either. Your company dropped the ball and now I am paying for it. 

I will not be endorsing nor recommending your institution to any of my friends. I had such a horrible experience that I decided to file a complaint with the agencies which regulate your industry. 

Sincerely, XXXX XXXX

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