Consumer complaint received 2016-01-25 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional fixed mortgage
Issue: Loan servicing, payments, escrow account — 
Company: JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
XXXX Requests fraudulent charges made to XXXX primary note account be refunded to XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
Chase stated nothing would change for XXXX XXXX concerning Insurance and tax handling from previous agreements concerning primary note of XXXX XXXX. Chase had always honored from XXXX till on or about XXXX XXXX a time when Chase sought to sale primary mortgage to XXXX XXXX. 
XXXX XXXX position concerning insurance is as follows. Chase broker did warrantee to XXXX XXXX that Chase would honor in future that which it had always respected in past such that XXXX handled all insurance himself for his benefit ONLY Chase breached XXXX agreement on or about XXXX XXXX. Chase then to sale primary note began to demand insurance changes to XXXX XXXX and placement requirements as to make Chase beneficiary on polices and increase both amount of Insurance and number of risks covered. Such changes were to benefit Chase not investors. Chase to make primary note salable to XXXX XXXX began aggressive attacks on XXXX beginning on or about XXXX XXXX. Chase thus broke verbal contract that had always been honored until that date from XXXX XXXX. Chase increased XXXX XXXX insurance costs over XXXX percent and charged same to XXXX accounts while demanding XXXX purchase additional Flood insurance as well. On breaching contract Chase sighted clauses in written contract that XXXX was not aware of nor had read to him before signing and Chase Primary note broker misrepresented while warranting XXXX prior agreement and handling of insurance and taxes would remain the same. Chase also demanded at this time XXXX purchase Flood insurance and make Chase beneficiary. XXXX had no risk for flood insurance although property was in FEMA new 20 year flood plan, Part of undeveloped dirt without improvements were below new XXXX foot flood plan. However XXXX knew from lay of land flooding was more likely than not very unlikely. XXXX proved lack of risk by purchasing a survey that showed no special risk to improvements due to flood for all improvements. Survey showed improvements above XXXX foot sea level flood plan and same was provided to Chase in breach of contract brought about by Chase. Survey proved XXXX point. Except for XXXX inch at beginning of garage floor some XXXX square feet of concreate flooring, which XXXX routinely washed with water because water IMPROVED it yet flooding never touched. Yet, from XXXX till present Chase has charged XXXX account for XXXX dollars each year now over XXXX dollars and growing while Chase claims if XXXX purchased same for Chase cost would be lower. Well, XXXX is not in habit of buying banks protections. XXXX XXXX XXXX Florida experienced flooding worst in over 200 years XXXX was high and dry nothing damaged over this same period. These actions taking place contributed to XXXX XXXX later default and increased risks to investors without investor knowledge. Chase by taking action to breach agreements concerning Insurance while increasing XXXX cost of same at time of transfer of mortgage to XXXX XXXX amounted to representations and warranties advanced to XXXX XXXX and investors which did not represent risk or costs of Chase breach of contract imposed on XXXX. Such changes in Insurance did not decrease investors risk but increased investor risk and risk of XXXX default, for Chase and insurance partner 's short term gains of insurance premium charges. 
Chase Charges to XXXX accounts without risk amounts to fraudulent charges which Chase externalized to XXXX for internalization of gains to Chase or partners in fact were fraudulent charges unauthorized by XXXX.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation