Consumer complaint received 2021-10-14
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — 
Company: TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION (MD)

On XX/XX/XXXX, CFPB notified me that it sent complaint ID # XXXX to the company, Suntrust Mortgage . 
On XX/XX/XXXX, Suntrust Mortgage responded ( see attached ). In paragraph 4, the writer states : " Your loan was on a forbearance from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. '' Under the CARES Act of XX/XX/XXXX, Suntrust Mortgage has committed a criminal violation of federal policy. 
According to Suntrust records of the account at issue, all mortgage payments were paid timely through XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX closed the entire state until further notice due to the pandemic. On XX/XX/XXXX, President Trump signed the CARES Act of XX/XX/XXXX/ In Suntrust 's correspondence dated XX/XX/XXXX ( see attached ), all clients were notified that " [ I ] f you loan is a federally-backed mortgage loan ... .you are entitled to an initial forbearance period for up to twelve ( 12 ) months. You can also entitled to extend your total forbearance period for up to twelve ( 12 ) months. '' So, my forbearance period began on XX/XX/XXXX. Therefore, my total forbearance period extends through XX/XX/XXXX. 
Under federal law, my next payment due date is XX/XX/XXXX. 
Suntrust 's own correspondence is proof of its federal law violation. 
In its XX/XX/XXXX attachment, Ms. XXXX XXXX writes : " On XX/XX/XXXX, we applied {$3100.00} from suspense toward the XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX payments, leaving {$830.00} in suspense. '' Suntrust deceptively applied client 's funds to a XX/XX/XXXX payment that does NOT exist pursuant to the CARES Act of XX/XX/XXXX. 
Suntrust further placed client 's funds in a " SUSPENSE '' account on at least nine ( 9 ) continuous occasions as verified by its XX/XX/XXXX correspondence in VIOLATION of federal law. 
Ms. XXXX XXXX, Officer, Client Resolution Senior Specialist Client-Advocacy, further writes : " On the same day, we disbursed {$3700.00} for taxes ''. 
Under federal law, any disbursement for taxes must come with full disclosure of client 's funds. Here, Suntrust failed to provide its client with full disclosure of client funds disbursed for taxes from a " SUSPENSE '' account in violation of federal law. 
Suntrust continues to place client 's funds in an illegal " SUSPENSE '' account due to its illegality of attempting to establish an escrow account that does not exist. 
In the XX/XX/XXXX CFPB response ( paragraph 4 ), Suntrust 's officer, Ms. XXXX, states that " [ O ] n XX/XX/XXXX, another notice was mailed to you to advise the delinquent taxes were paid and an escrow account was established for the life of the loan in accordance with the Deed of Trust. This information is also stated on the signed Escrow Waiver ''. 
Ms. XXXX is referring to paragraph 7 of the Escrow Waiver already on file with CFPB. 
However, the delinquent taxes were paid by Suntrust and was also covered by the CARES Act of XX/XX/XXXX. 
Under the legal doctrine of UNJUST ENRICHMENT, Suntrust CAN NOT benefit twice during a pandemic whereby most mortgagers nationwide were similarly situated through no fault of their own. 
Hence, paragraph 7 refers to " fault of your own ''. Therefore, Suntrust has NO legal authority to create an ESCROW account without the consent of the client.