Consumer complaint received 2020-01-26
Product: Mortgage — Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage — 
Company: FIRST FINANCIAL BANCORP (OH)

Business Name : First Financial Bank My husband was telling his banker for his XXXX, XXXX XXXX with First Financial Bank at its XXXX XXXX XXXX location, about the poor manner in which XXXX XXXX   handled our refinance during the month of XXXX, XXXX. Ms. XXXX assured my husband that, based on what he reported to her regarding my credit score, his income ( I also have verifiable income ) and having at least $ 50k plus of equity in my home, First Financial could help us with a home equity loan. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, my husband and I met with Ms. XXXX. Once she had both of our credit reports pulled, she stated that she had all she needed. I asked her if she saw any issues with our credit reports, and she stated that she would be using my credit report, but my husband 's income ( as my income apparently was " not enough '' due to me being self-employed ), and that she saw no issues. She then stated that she would send us a link so that we could upload paystubs, tax returns, etc. We had our items submitted within 7-14 days. 

We kept in contact with Ms. XXXX over those next few weeks to keep up with the process of our application. During that time, the only issue she brought up was my husband 's income could be an issue - because my husband 's XXXX  operated at a loss in XXXX. However, she stated that she believed we could still get to the percentage that we needed, based on my husband 's salary from being employed with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX since XXXX. Sometime in XXXX ( I am perturbed that I can not locate the letter to confirm the date ), I received a letter from First Financial stating that our application was denied due to a garnishment ( which I have none ), unverifiable income ( although we submitted tax returns and pay stubs, respectively, from XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX ), and another reason which I can not remember due to the letter being misplaced. At no point during the application process did an issue of a garnishment come up. At no point were we told that our income was " unverifiable. '' In fact, the only issue we were apprised of was whether his income would be at the right percentage to be approved. 

I contacted Ms. XXXX at least three times, since receiving the letter, to get clarification as to the actual reason we were denied as the reasons stated in the letter were never brought up to us. To date, she has never responded. I contacted First Financial 's customer service, and they stated that I had to speak with the branch where we applied. As a result, I had no choice but to feel like something else is afoot here. 

It was not until I filed a complaint when XXXX XXXX, a manager, began to reach out. When I called Mr. XXXX on or about XX/XX/XXXX, he proceeded to discuss items which never came up before ; although, from the beginning, we asked repeatedly if there were any problems with either of our credit reports, which we were told there were not. He brought up one issue was regarding an item which was paid for 5 years ago and not showing on our end on any of his credit bureau reports. Mr. XXXX made a comment about excessive debt. I have $ 50k+ in equity in my home ; as a home owner, when a person wants better control of their debt, then they utilize the equity in their home - correct? We asked on day one if my student loan debt, credit cards ( due to building 3 businesses ), or personal loans for XXXX  ( none of which have ever been delinquent ), or any other debt would be an issue. Ms. XXXX indicated there was no issue. 

First Financial initially stated they could help us because we could show valid income and at least one of us has a good credit score/payment history. Now, out of nowhere, XXXX brings up a five year old issue which was resolved years ago ; it involved a car which my husband turned in because it had a faulty engine. There was a balance left on the car which was taken care of through a settlement. He should see that on the credit report - but they pulled a report that didnt have anywhere near the scores my husband was showing on his credit monitoring for that credit bureau. Instead of clarifying the issues, as an underwriter should have done first, they took that information along with some other foolishness about excessive debt, which never came up despite us asking if there were any issues with either one of our reports.In my experience, if a bank truly wants to work with an applicant, it would contact the applicant for clarification or to request supplemental documents. First Financial did not make any attempt to do this after we submitted the initial requested documents. 

I have been dealing with credit since I was XXXX. Thats 20 years of credit cards, loans and a mortgage. Between my husband and I, there are student loans, car loans, personal loans for XXXX, a mortgage, and credit card debt due to starting businessES. I do not have any collections on my report. I am a XXXX  XXXX  in her eighth year of XXXX. I have been in XXXX  XXXX  for three years straight. I can verify my income from it as a XXXX  XXXX  who is both XXXX  XXXX  and accepts private pay clients. 

I have good credit with no collections or past due items. My score was around 698 or 700 during the time of the application. My home currently has about $ 50,000+ in equity. My husband has been gainfully employed with the same XXXX XXXX for 11+ years and First Financial sees most of the money that comes from his XXXX, which has been in business since XXXX. I think the credit score they pulled form him was incorrect as, just three weeks prior to Ms. XXXX XXXX credit inquiry my husband was in the low to mid 600s and nothing changed on his report ; but she said it was much lower ( XXXX ) as of XX/XX/XXXX. My husband pulled up his credit monitoring and showed her that there must be some mistake - but they went with what they pulled and told us that only my credit would be factored into the application. 

The reason why I didnt do an application by myself is due to my student loan debt negatively affecting my debt-to-income ratio. XXXX said that XXXX income should do just fine. She later said that because the BUSINESS, not my husbands income in of itself, took a loss, the underwriter may have an issue with my husband 's income. What did that have to do with the fact that our tax returns shows that we collectively had valid income for that year? 

I do not know if there is an issue of us being self-employed,   but my husband also is a salaried employee of another entity. I do not know if this is about race or socioeconomic status. 

I am not certain of what First Financial tried to pull here, but at the very least, it is extremely clear that First Financial 's letter stating the reason for denial is completely different from what had been discussed over the course of the application. What is frustrating is that First Financial refuses to give us a concrete reason as to why they denied an application which we were told was " so promising '' at the beginning. 

We have the income, we have the creditworthiness ( since when does a bank ignore scores and cherry pick old issues instead?? ), and the equity in the home. I, alone, am absolutely credit worthy. Yet, this letter was sent after weeks of not hearing anything. Prior to that, we received consistent communication. Soon after, we heard nothing and were never given a heads up with any issues which hadn't been discussed before. I do not believe First Financial has a valid reason to deny us. 

It is clear that First Financial misrepresented it's willingness to provide good customer service and willingness to work with us as credit-worthy applicants. I don't even believe they pulled a valid credit report for my husband because what they had and what we showed for the same credit report were very different. It is clear that they are trying to cover up the fact that they told us one thing in the beginning of the application, and despite us giving EVERYTHING requested of us for the application, they continue to be inconsistent with their reason for the denial.