Consumer complaint received 06/14/2016 about Mortgage (Conventional fixed mortgage) with TIAA, FSB (MN).
Issue: Loan servicing, payments, escrow account

Complaint: On XXXX/XXXX/XXXX I sent a letter to Everbank requesting removal of my PMI insurance. After many back and forth conversations with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the appraisal company for Everbank. I was able to speak with XXXX XXXX ( from Everbank ) on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. My goal was to understand the requirements needed to remove PMI. XXXX told me my home would need an appraisal, that my loan to value ratio needed to be at 75 % and that appraisal would stay on file for 120 days. I could not understand why the 75 % requirement was in place given that everything I had heard was 80 % nor could I understand why the appraisal would only be on file for 120 days considering our loan was done in XXXX through a XXXX program and no appraisal was done at that time. Since XXXX could not properly answer my questions or help me understand why certain policies were in place we decided to not move forward with the canceling of PMI. 
On XXXX/XXXX/XXXX within our annual tax documents from Everbank there was a flyer that stated " Important Notice to Minnesota Mortgagors ''. Within that document it stated that you had the right to cancel at if the loan is 80 % or less of the current market value of your home. Upon reading this I assumed a mistake was made in XXXX. I was finally able to speak with someone from Everbank XXXX XXXX XXXX to help me on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX and we started the process to remove PMI again. I spoke with XXXX that day as well and paid them {$450.00} and set up a home inspection for XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. 
On XXXX/XXXX/XXXX with the help of XXXX I received an email from XXXX XXXX ( from Everbank ). Within that email she included a copy of a letter that was mailed to me on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. Within that letter it stated my home had appraised at {$170000.00} and my current principle value was at {$140000.00} and I therefore did not meet the 75 % rule to cancel PMI. I called the number at the bottom of the letter and spoke with XXXX XXXX XXXX ID XXXX ). I again asked why my home had to appraise at 75 % and not the 80 % that was sent to me on my tax document flyer. She put me on hold multiple times and had her supervisor XXXX XXXX employee ID XXXX XXXX look at my account. XXXX told me if I could pay my principle balance down to 80 % in the near future than PMI could be canceled. I confirmed this fact with her multiple times and asked for the name of the supervisor that helped her. 
On XXXX/XXXX/XXXX I made a payment of {$8300.00} from XXXX 's advice on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX to cancel PMI. While she could not give me the exact amount as I said she confirmed that getting my balance to 80 % would stop PMI. {$1200.00} was for my normal payment and {$7000.00} was for principle reduction. That payment reduced my principle balance to {$140000.00} which is 79.57 % of the appraisal dated XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. 
On XXXX/XXXX/XXXX I received a letter from XXXX XXXX of Everbank again telling me my right to cancel PMI was denied because I did not meet the 75 % rule. The most hurtful part of the letter was they referred back to the XXXX/XXXX/XXXX letter as if I did not see it or follow it but no where did they mention the XXXX conversation I had with XXXX or the tax flyer they sent me. I did look up the information on the tax flyer ; they are referring to Minnesota statutes of XXXX XXXX. The verbiage within their flyer matches the suggested text in XXXX. XXXX. 
I 'm incredibly disappointed that I could not speak with someone to help me. I 'm disappointed that they would send me mixed messages so I have no idea what is going on. I have never missed a mortgage payment and this frustration with Everbank has now been going on for 6 months. Why would they contradict my state 's laws around canceling PMI? Why would they intentionally mislead me into making a large payment if they had no intention of canceling my PMI? That was almost all my savings. Now I 'm stressing out if an emergency comes up for which I do n't have the money saved for.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation