Consumer complaint received 09/17/2016 about Mortgage (Conventional fixed mortgage) with NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE (MD).
Issue: Loan servicing, payments, escrow account

Complaint: Seneca mortgage took over my loan in XXXX XXXX. I called to let them know that I had switched from semi-annual real estate tax payments to annual with XXXX XXXX, but with the refinance, I was back under the semi-annual tax payment plan. I was told that could n't be resolved until the account was set up. Once the account was set up, I made several attempts before XXXX/XXXX/XXXX to switch to the annual tax payment plan and pay the shortage in escrow. Before the annual tax payment switch could be fixed, Seneca claimed that I had an incredibly high escrow shortage, but no one could explain why. Upon many phone calls, I was told that Seneca did n't know I had paid all of my XXXX taxes, so I was being charged for XXXX and XXXX taxes. That is a huge mistake. Finally, that was fixed and the second payment had been made to pay the taxes in full for XXXX year. I was n't switched to the annual pay plan because the escrow analysis and whoever was supposed to switch the payment did not do it correctly, therefore the escrow monthly payments were wrong and I would again have a shortage in XXXX XXXX for XXXX taxes. Since I made countless phone calls with no resolution by XXXX XXXX, I decided to wait and try to switch to the annual plan again in XXXX XXXX. I made a request to change from the semi-annual tax payment plan to annual in XXXX XXXX, but a partial payment was already made. I made numerous phone calls to find out if Seneca would pay the remaining amount on my behalf or if I should pay the county directly. I could not get a straight answer from anyone and was finally told by a representative that I was the reason there were so many problems with my account and that I should stop trying to dictate the payments made to the county. The same individual also asked me how much money would I even save anyway and that switching is pointless. He also told me that in XXXX XXXX, another representative called the XXXX County Real Estate Tax Dept and was told that I was not allowed to switch ; he claimed that changing from a semi-annual tax payment to an annual tax payment has nothing to do with how your mortgage is set up, but is based on what the county decides to charge you and can not be changed or altered by Seneca. I told him I did n't believe this was true, that I had switched while financed with XXXX XXXX, I had been told I could switch by other Seneca representatives and that I would call the county directly. When I called the county, I was told the representative must have lied about the phone call because the county would never advise a mortgage company that they were not allowed to change from semi-annual to annual and it is illegal for the mortgage company to refuse my request. I called back, made a complaint with Seneca and requested the change again. This time with the information from XXXX County, there were no arguments and I was placed on the annual tax payment plan. However, Seneca overpaid the tax amount and calculated the escrow based on the wrong tax payment, in addition to not including my new homeowner 's policy change. I advised Seneca, with advance notice, of both changes. The changes took effect the same day as the escrow analysis, however that change was not included in the calculation of my shortage or projected escrow payment. I have called numerous times since XXXX/XXXX/XXXX and have been told many different shortage amounts, different tax amounts, and I was even told an analysis would not be done if the changes were less than {$600.00}. No one could tell me what numbers were used for the analysis or get a new analysis. The loan was transferred on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX to another company with a {$1200.00} escrow shortage and over $ XXXX/mo increase. I paid the tax shortage, but the change in homeowner 's should be less than {$400.00}, not more than {$1200.00}. Seneca is responsible for overcharging me and giving the new company wrong information.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation