Consumer complaint received 2025-03-24 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Payment process
Company: Rocket Mortgage, LLC
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
I am filing a complaint against Rocket Mortgage for violating Regulation Z ( 12 CFR 1026.36 ( c ) ( 1 ) ) by failing to credit my bi-weekly mortgage payments as received, resulting in a direct financial loss of {$1800.00} in extra interest, along with additional unquantifiable harm to my financial opportunities. I have evidence, including screenshots of Rockets online servicing portal, showing that my payments were marked as " applied '' on the dates they were made. However, I later discoveredburied two clicks deeper in the portalthat these payments were not actually applied but held in a " suspense '' account until a full {$1200.00} was collected, then applied monthly. This misleading presentation in their portal obscured the true application status, leading me to believe my principal was being reduced promptly, when in reality, it was not. 

I sent the email below to Rocket Mortgage and spoke with XXXX in their executive office on XX/XX/XXXX. While XXXX acknowledged that the portals language was misleading, she refused to reallocate the payments that sat in suspense for a cumulative total of over 15 months, costing me {$1800.00} in extra interest on my loan. 
Additionally, by holding my {$640.00} payments in suspense for ~14 days each across XXXX payments, Rocket deprived me of unquantifiable investment income I could have earned had those funds remained in my high-yield checking account or been invested in my brokerage account, compounding the financial harm. I requested the specific language in my mortgage agreement that XXXX claimed supported their practice of holding payments in suspense, but the mortgage note she provided contains no such provision, further evidencing their lack of transparency and contractual basis for this practice. 

Rocket Mortgage is violating Regulation Z in multiple ways. When I enrolled in their bi-weekly payment program, I was not informed how my payments would be applied, nor was I asked to sign any agreement outlining this suspense practice. The only requirement was to be a month ahead, which I have consistently maintained for the past 16 months. As a month-ahead borrower, each {$640.00} payment was an advance payment, not a partial one awaiting a due date, yet Rockets delay in crediting these payments as received imposed a {$1800.00} charge in extra interesta cost I would not have incurred if the payments had been applied promptly, contravening Regulation Zs requirement to credit payments on the date of receipt unless no charge results. 

Moreover, Rockets lack of transparency in their online portalwhere payments are misleadingly labeled as " applied '' while actually held in suspenseprevents consumers from understanding the true impact on their loan until significant harm has accrued. 

Given Rockets large market share, I believe this practice likely affects thousands of other borrowers nationwide, warranting a broader investigation into their bi-weekly payment program for potential systemic violations, similar to prior cases against servicers like XXXX ( e.g., In re XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. XXXX ). I request that the CFPB investigate Rocket Mortgages practices, enforce Regulation Z to secure my {$1800.00} in direct damages plus compensation for my unquantifiable investment losses, and examine whether their bi-weekly program systematically harms other consumers, potentially justifying further regulatory action. 

Email to Rocket : Im addressing a critical issue with my bi-weekly auto-pay program for Loan [ REDACTED ], which Ive canceled effective XX/XX/XXXX due to Rocket Mortgage 's mishandling. 

My loan is {$130000.00}, 20 years at 10.4 %, with {$120000.00} principal as of XX/XX/XXXX per your records. From XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, I made XXXX bi-weekly payments of {$640.00} ( {$25000.00} total, including 3 principal-only ) while a month ahead, expecting each payment to reduce my principal promptly given my prepaid status. Instead, Rocket held each payment in suspense until {$1200.00}, applying it monthly ( e.g., XX/XX/XXXX : {$640.00} from XXXX held, then {$220.00} principal, {$1000.00} interest ). This kept my principal higher, increasing daily interest at 10.4 % by {$1800.00} over what I shouldve paid. 

My principal dropped from {$120000.00} to {$120000.00} ( {$5200.00} ), with {$17000.00} interest. If applied on the dates paid ( attached ), it would be {$120000.00} ( reduction {$7000.00} ), with interest of $ XXXXmeaning their repeated delay in applying payments cost me {$1800.00} in extra interest. As a month-ahead borrower in your bi-weekly program, each {$640.00} was an advance payment, not a partial one awaiting a due date, yet their practice imposed this charge. 

This may violate : Regulation Z ( 12 CFR 1026.36 ( c ) ( 1 ) ) : Payments must be credited as received unless no charge results. Your delay in crediting my bi-weekly paymentsdespite my prepaid statusimposed a {$1800.00} charge in extra interest, a cost I wouldnt have incurred if applied promptly, contravening the rules intent. 

Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ( Fla. Stat. 501.204 ) : Holding advance payments in suspense, causing me {$1800.00} in unavoidable extra interest, is an unfair practice under Florida law, regardless of your disclosed process. 

By XX/XX/XXXX, I expect : A corrected statement recalculating interest/principal from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX per my payment dates. 
A credit in full for overpaid interest. 
Confirmation of my bi-weekly program cancellation. 

If unresolved, I intend to file a formal complaint with the CFPB, citing Regulation Z, and with the Florida Attorney General under FDUTPA, using my complete transaction history. 

Sincerely, [ XXXX ]

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation