Consumer complaint received 2021-10-28
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage — 
Company: AMERISAVE MORTGAGE CORPORATION (OH)

I have been in the process of applying for a mortgage for a new house through Amerisave, loan # XXXX. Meanwhile, I am going through the finalization of a divorce. The confluence of the two matters has led to an incorrect evaluation of my financial circumstances by Amerisave and the underwriter for my mortgage loan. 

I began my mortgage application on XX/XX/2021 with an originally planned closing date of XX/XX/2021. My final divorce hearing was scheduled for XX/XX/2021 and occurred as planned. 

My loan officer at Amerisave was helpful in terms of working through the fact that my divorce would be finalized in the middle of obtaining the mortgage ; which would necessitate a change in my financial situation midway through the process. He asked that I deliver the divorce decree once the divorce was finalized and I did so. The purpose of delivering the decree was to convey my monthly spousal and child support obligation amounts for the underwriter to take those values into consideration once they were finalized. 

A second factor significant to this matter, I have an existing monthly mortgage obligation for my marital home. This home is now on the market, but does not yet have a buyer, so at this time I continue to be responsible for the monthly financial obligations related to the house and mortgage, which are appropriately being taken into consideration for my new mortgage application. 

In order to ensure that I would not end up in a situation where I would be responsible for the marital home obligations and spousal and child support in a given month, I obtained agreement with my wife in our divorce decree that spousal and child support would not start until after the marital house sold. I attach files that support this legally binding arrangement. 

Hence, while the marital house remains on the market, my monthly obligations will include costs related to the marital house but not spousal or child support ; and once the house sells, my monthly obligations will include spousal and child support but no costs related to the marital house. But importantly, because of the legally binding arrangement in the divorce decree, I will never be in a situation where all three financial obligations overlap in any given month ( marital house mortgage, child support, and spousal support ). 

If my financial situation is assessed logically and rationally : before the marital house sells, my debt-to-income ratio is 48 %, and after the marital house sells, my debt-to-income ratio is 43 % ; both of which are in the valid range for Amerisave to satisfactorily approve my mortgage. 

My mortgage loan processor informed me yesterday ( XX/XX/XXXX ) that the underwriter for my loan will only consider all of the monthly costs concurrently ( which equates to an approximately 60 % debt-to-ratio condition ) even though there will be no month in the future where all of the costs previously described will overlap - because of the language that prevents exactly this in my divorce decree. Amerisave tells me that the underwriter will not issue the loan as is because of the illogical debt ratio math they have applied to my particular circumstances ; as described previously. 

The Dodd-Frank law , which is likely the driving factor behind the underwriter 's risk aversion related to my circumstance, was not established to cause unintended consequences like this. Given that so many people go through transitory ( short term ) life circumstance changes, the law and its interpretation really should do its best to create a supportive path for those going through such life circumstance matters that will be shortly overcome ; especially if those undergoing the circumstance have a stellar credit history and especially if there are clearly evaluated legally-binding circumstances ( as in my situation ). If the law does not already, it should allow and encourage underwriters to form a holistic view of any situation and as well should stipulate that rational logic should always trump unwarranted risk aversion to well defined. As in my circumstance, my debt ratio numbers indicate myself as a well-qualified buyer both before and after my marital home sale, which should result in the conclusion that in totality I remain a qualified buyer throughout the totality of my as assessed future life circumstances. 

Congress did not intend Dodd-Frank to get in the way of rational risk taking with respect to mortgage issuance. If irrational risk aversion is to become the norm for mortgage companies and underwriters, the overall success of the US economy will be put at risk - few will be able to buy homes, prices will crash, and sellers will be stuck with unsalable property liabilities.