Consumer complaint received 2022-02-25 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Closing on a mortgage — 
Company: AMERISAVE MORTGAGE CORPORATION
State: MD

Complaint narrative:
1. Background After an unsuccessful attempt to sell our investment property in Washington , DC, we started shopping for refinance options in XX/XX/XXXX. Our intent was lowering the monthly payments, which would make it viable for us to rent for a few years. Our goal was to have a positive cash flow from the rental and save the money needed to make the home improvements required to sell at full market value. 

After reviewing multiple similar refinance offers, we submitted a loan application to AmeriSave on XX/XX/XXXX. 

On XX/XX/XXXX we received the first Loan Estimate and confirmation that the loan terms had been locked. On XX/XX/XXXX we signed the Loan Terms Agreement for Loan # XXXX. ( Attachment A ). 

2. AmeriSaves first attempt to change the Loan Terms Agreement On XX/XX/XXXX we received Closing Disclosures with terms different than the Loan Terms Agreement. After several requests for an explanation the Loan Officer replied via email on XX/XX/XXXX saying that he was reviewing the issue but had no idea what had changed and that he expected to get it resolved before the holidays ( see Attachment B ). 

After several days of unanswered emails and calls on XX/XX/XXXX we finally received a call from XXXX XXXX, Mortgage XXXX XXXX. He said that the loan terms had changed because our property was a multi-family property and not a single-family with an XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). Right away we provided documentation from several official sources proving AmeriSaves claim was incorrect. For two weeks our requests to rectify the error were ignored or rejected ( See Attachment C ). 

On XX/XX/XXXX, AmeriSave agreed to fix the property classification only after we reached out to parties involved and uncovered that AmeriSave was the one that had asked the appraiser to use the multi-family classification. AmeriSave ordered a second appraisal which was completed on XX/XX/XXXX. But the loan terms still did not match the original agreement in subsequent Closing Disclosures. 

Up to the morning of XX/XX/XXXX we were still being told by the Loan Officer and Loan Processor that they were working with the underwriter and their management to resolve the discrepancy on the loan terms. 

3. Ultimatum from AmeriSave Late afternoon on Friday XX/XX/XXXX we received a call from XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX  XXXX at AmeriSave, informing us for the first time that AmeriSave was not planning to honor the Loan Terms Agreement signed on XX/XX/XXXX ( see Attachment A ). The explanation this time was that the Loan Officer had not priced the subordination of our Home Equity Line of Credit correctly. Despite providing proof that the Loan Officer and Loan Processor were aware of the subordination prior to the Loan Terms Agreement being signed ( see Attachment D ), we were given one business day to accept AmeriSaves new loan terms ( see Attachment E ) or our loan would be canceled.

At that point we were out of options as similar offers received in XXXX were no longer available and interest rates were significantly higher. We were forced to accept the new terms with lender credits {$5400.00} lower and closing cost XXXX higher than the original agreement. We were forced to close under the new terms on XX/XX/XXXX, three months after the process started. 

The loan Processor XXXX XXXX and Loan Officers XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX were always very helpful, professional and acted with integrity throughout this process. For more than two months they tried their best to do the right thing and honor the original loan terms, only to receive push back and excuses from the underwriter ( s ) and AmeriSave managers. 

4. Other Delays Throughout the three-month process, we kept receiving requests for additional documents at least every week. In total, AmeriSave requested at least 73 documents, that in addition to the standard documents that were submitted with the original application. 

Having refinanced properties multiples times in the past ( including our primary home a few months earlier ) we knew some of the requests were not standard practice. AmeriSave had our credit reports showing excellent credit and never a late payment, but we were asked to submit full years of bank statements to confirm timely payments. To make matters worse, some of the documents were requested multiple times. After a few weeks we became worried that we were being treated differently because of our last name or that this could be a delay tactic to let the locked terms expire. If the refinance was not approved, monthly payments at the time wouldnt allow us to rent without a negative cash flow. Our efforts to lease the property had to be put on hold until we had some certainty around the loan. 

Despite our excellent credit, being top 3 % earners, having a respectable net worth, and providing a massive amount of documentation in a timely manner, our loan was not fully approved until early XXXX. 

5. Cost The cost of our decision to refinance our investment property with AmeriSave vs. other similar offers received at the time is significant. In addition to the almost $ XXXX difference in loan terms, it includes XXXX dollars in lost rental income, equity and interest over 3 months. Our cash reserves to fund the XXXXmprovements needed to rent or sell at a fair market price have been depleted. This could represent additional loses of $ XXXX if due to the resulting financial situation we are forced to sell the property at a discount without the required improvements.

Most likely other means will be required for AmeriSave to compensate for all the losses resulting from the financial and emotional stress that this situation created for our family. But at a minimum we request that XXXXmeriSave honors the loan terms agreement originally signed and refund 1 ) the lender credits originally promised, 2 ) the difference on the loan amount, and 3 ) any incremental closing cost resulting from AmeriSave mistakes that were never agreed upon ( i.e. charges for multiple appraisals ).

Our request to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is to investigate the situation. We have a good understanding of the refinance process and knowledge of the resources available to help us resolve the issue. But we are mostly concerned that vulnerable groups without access to the same resources may be recurring victims of similar bait-and-switch practices. 

A substantial amount of emails and documents supporting the above are available upon request. 

Thank you in advance for your time and attention. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions or need additional information. 

Regards, XXXX XXXX

Company public response: Company believes complaint represents an opportunity for improvement to better serve consumers
Company response to consumer: Closed with monetary relief