Consumer complaint received 2017-01-12 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — FHA mortgage
Issue: Application, originator, mortgage broker — 
Company: MORTGAGE 1 INCORPORATION
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/2015 I contacted Mortgage One to obtain a FHA mortgage with MSHDA down payment assistance. I had previously been preapproved by XXXX for XXXX but their XXXX Next down payment assistance program was suspended and I needed those funds for my down payment. Mortgage One was still utilizing the MSHDA Next Program. I contacted them and submitted my application. 
The following day XXXX contacted me and said that my DTI was too high and I would not qualify for the loan amount I wanted and I would not qualify for the MSHDA NEXT program. I provided him a schedule of my income based repayment, he said HUD nor MSHDA accepted IBR. 
I was shocked by his answer and decided to contact both HUD on Thursday XX/XX/2015 and MSHDA.I found out his information was false and contacted him.. 
XXXX still refused to budge on his decision. He emailed me stating that there are new laws coming XX/XX/XXXX and HUD will no longer be accepting income based repayment. I went online and read the new rules and they do not apply to me since I am not on deferred payment not {$0.00} due income based repayment. He told me he would contact me after his meeting the following day but I did not heard from him on the day that he stated. 
I contacted XXXX XXXX a manager for the Mortgage One location in XXXX XXXX. She was unsure of what happened and I assume she called and spoke to XXXX XXXX the manager of the office in which XXXX works and the officer on this deal. He refused to pass the loan to her office stating that they had done all the work. Which was false because I was the one that escalated the information to the MSHDA underwriter and the HUD rep. XXXX never addressed any of the false statements that XXXX ( his assistant made ) just confirmed that I would have to sell my current home, which was false. MSHDA DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE only goes by the Liquid Assets, not real estate value. XXXX took a further step that neither HUD nor MSHDA required and added my property taxes on my current home, to be paid in full. Again, this was not a requirement of HUD OR MSHDA and they both were aware of my property taxes, that I was making payments on. XXXX even tried to state that property taxes are a federal tax lien, therefore they were required to be paid off before we could proceed, although XXXX at MSHDA said that was not the case ( see attached email ) XXXX and XXXX decided on their own to keep my loan to work on but continued to twist HUD rules and find ways to deny me. I had finally got fed up and told them they had everything they needed and to give me a decision. It was finally sent to the underwriter, that requested a credit supplement to get the payments on my credit report corrected. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, I received an email from XXXX XXXX stating that someone from CREDIT PLUS would contact me to get information on my student loans, I received a phone call from XXXX XXXX at XXXX, we were on the phone for 14 minutes getting everything the underwriter needed, she spoke to my loan servicer and received a XXXX repayment term on my student loans. I thought I was all set. 

I was anxious to bid on a house I had founds so On XX/XX/XXXX I called XXXX XXXX to check on the status, XXXX told me my loan was denied due to DTI ratio because they are required to use the amortizing payment 0f I ... believe about {$1600.00} although I only pay XXXX a month. He went on to say that the underwriter also took in the factor that I did not have more money saved since I do not have a mortgage payment ... but was using XXXX assistance. I asked him to send the denial letter and he did ... but the one he sent did not have a current date on it, it was the original one from the student loan error .... and not a current correct one. I file with HUD on XX/XX/XXXX and after speaking to atty, filed with CFPB.

Company public response: Company believes the complaint is the result of a misunderstanding
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation