I am a XXXX resident using PennyMac, based in XXXX as a lender to service a mortgage. I chose PennyMac before I left XXXX to move to XXXX, because of the company 's relationship with XXXX, with whom I had prior good mortgage referrals. I very much regret having chosen this company, which has caused several delays in closing, and which nearly cost me a thousand dollars in lost seller 's credit, until my agent gave them instructions on how to do their job. However, these annoyances are not my legal complaint.
On the week before we reserved a date for our house closing, assured by PennyMac ( " PM '' ) that we could close on or beforeXX/XX/XXXX, I asked what specific power of attorney would be needed for my co-signer, my mother who lives out-of-state, to have me sign for her. My agent 's manager, who was covering for the agent who was out for a few days ( without telling me ), checked for a PM power of attorney template. Not finding one, she referred me to my title insurance company. I did this, and immediately forwarded a copy to PM to review and approve. On XX/XX/XXXX, the manager replied that she had forwarded the POA to her underwriter to do so. In the meantime, I sent a copy to my mother who paid to have it notarized and sent next-day to the title company for closing on XX/XX/XXXX The signed copy faxed to title and PM. On XX/XX/XXXX, as my mother was sending the notarized copy, PM contacted me to tell me that the underwriter refused to review the unsigned copy that they had received. After they received it, they would still require 24 hours before they would approve it.
Twenty four hours later, they declined to approve the POA. OnXX/XX/XXXX, they wrote XX/XX/XXXX POA must be fully executed prior to approval. Per Policy Procedure doc XXXX ( XXXX ) : # 1 Please provide a handwritten letter of explanation regardin the reason for the used of the Power of Attorney and relationship between parties.
# 2 The borrower ( s ) must indicate who will physically attend the signing.
My complaint against PM is that this policy is unreasonable on its face, and grossly unreasonable as applied in my particular case.
There is no rational reason for providing a " handwritten letter '' as opposed to any other form of communication, including a signed typed letter. The policy does not specify who is to write the " handwritten letter '' -- the individual seeking the POA, the other Buyer, or some other individual.
When the party seeking the POA lives out-of-state, hundreds of miles away, that is a self-evident reason for seeking a POA.
When the party seeking the POA is already documented in the company 's records as being the mother of the other Buyer, the information demanded is superfluous and should not be a condition of approval.
The POA reviewed designates the other Buyer as the one authorized to sign. Asking who will physically attend the signing serves no rational purpose and is implied on the face of the POA.
Finally, these " surprise '' requirements, as trivial and unexpected as they are, were never shared with me after the POA was discussed with PM representatives and manager, until XX/XX/XXXX. Even had we provided what we believed the underwriter needed ( which as I note is ambiguous ), we were informed that the underwriter needs 24 hours to consider any document before giving approval. Thus, our promised closing date of XX/XX/XXXXhad to be rescheduled again.
I immediately informed PM that we would withdraw the POA, as it had cost us unacceptable delays in closing, and we could not afford further delays while we worked with the underwriter to figure out what exactly they needed to approve the document. We are trying to make moving arrangements, school transfer arrangements, work arrangements, utility transfer and property maintenance arrangements. The money my mother spent on notarizing and sending the document to the title company was wasted, and she was compelled to spend several hundred dollars to fly out to be physically present at the signing.
Please investigate the PM policy, including procedures how it is shared with the public, to determine if it puts an unreasonable burden on the consumer. Consumers at the late stage of the process of closing on a house are in a highly vulnerable position, and the mortgage company has a virtual monopoly over their customer at that point. I believe that PM is negligent in its application of its policies, which are themselves arbitrary and capricious.