Consumer complaint received 2026-05-19 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Escrow, taxes, or insurance
Company: LoanCare, LLC
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
My mortgage servicer is making unauthorized escrow disbursements from my account to pay premiums on an insurance policy that does not cover the property securing my loan. The servicer is the sub-servicer for the lender. The mortgaged property includes a main residence and a separate back-house structure on the same parcel. The loan requires hazard insurance on the main residence only, which is satisfied by a Travelers Personal Insurance hazard policy with an annual premium of {$2200.00} that has been properly escrowed and paid for years without issue. The back house has been separately insured by XXXX XXXX XXXX since XXXX, with an annual premium of {$1400.00}. This policy is voluntary, has never been required by the loan, and was always paid by me directly, outside of escrow, until XX/XX/XXXX. In XX/XX/XXXX, the servicer added this Foremost policy to my escrow account, attributing it in their records to the main residence rather than the back house. This was done without authorization from me. In XX/XX/XXXX, I received an escrow shortage notice. To minimize the resulting payment increase, I paid the servicer {$2600.00} out of pocket toward the shortage. On XX/XX/XXXX, the servicer disbursed {$1400.00} from my escrow account by overnight check to XXXX XXXX for the misattributed policy. In XX/XX/XXXX, I received a second escrow analysis showing my monthly payment increasing again, from approximately {$5200.00} to {$5400.00} effective XX/XX/XXXX. My original payment before any of this began was approximately {$5000.00}. On or about XX/XX/XXXX, the servicer scheduled a second disbursement of {$1400.00} from my escrow account for the same misattributed policy. I called both the servicer and XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, attempting to stop the disbursement. Both stated the payment could not be stopped once in process. On XX/XX/XXXX, I received an automated email from the servicer 's customer service department stating that my request to remove the XXXX policy from escrow had been denied. The email provided no factual basis for the denial, no analysis of the documentation I had provided, and no representative name. It was a form response that did not constitute a substantive review. XXXX XXXX XXXX has since confirmed to me by telephone that they hold only one policy in my name, that the policy covers the back house only, and that no policy exists covering the main residence under any policy number. The policy number appearing in the servicer 's records with a two-digit suffix simply reflects the policy 's sixth annual renewal term it is the same policy XXXX has confirmed covers only the back house. The servicer has therefore been escrowing for and disbursing payments on a policy that exists, but that covers a structure the loan does not require to be insured. The {$1400.00} disbursement from XX/XX/XXXX has since been reimbursed to me, and I have redeposited it into my escrow account. However, this resolves only one component of the harm. The XX/XX/XXXX disbursement of {$1400.00} remains pending or in process. The {$2600.00} I paid out of pocket toward the XX/XX/XXXX shortage has not been refunded. My monthly mortgage payment remains inflated, scheduled to increase to {$5400.00} effective XX/XX/XXXX driven entirely by the inclusion of the misattributed policy in escrow analyses. The underlying error in the servicer 's records that the XXXX policy is attributed to the wrong property and should not be in my escrow at all has not been corrected. On XX/XX/XXXX, I mailed a formal Notice of Error and Request for Information under RESPA, 12 C.F.R. 1024.35 and 1024.36, to the servicer 's designated address for such notices, via U.S. Certified Mail with Return Receipt Requested. The letter requests removal of the misattributed policy from escrow, recovery of the XX/XX/XXXX disbursement, refund of the {$2600.00} out-of-pocket payment, a corrected escrow analysis, and restoration of my monthly payment. I am filing this complaint in parallel with that Notice of Error because the servicer 's prior response to my dispute was a form denial without substantive review, and because the underlying servicing error has caused and continues to cause material financial harm.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation