Consumer complaint received 2019-11-25 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Closing on a mortgage — 
Company: FIRSTBANK PUERTO RICO
State: PR

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX my former husband, wrote to me through an email that he was going to arrange with MrXXXX XXXX XXXX a mortgage for our childrens home. First Bank, in which Mr. XXXX was working as an important mortgage official, obtained the income verification documents from Mr. XXXX exclusively. They arranged the " Ability to Repay '' income verification required documents and informed me to go to the bank for the closing on XX/XX/XXXX. I was ordered by the family court to make the mortgage payments as the childrens custodial parent. It was my understanding that the mortgage as well as the property title was going to be under my former husbands name and mine. 
Keep in mind that my former husband was the chief financial officer of a First Banks company client with total liabilities over {>= $1,000,000}, and I was told that several bank executives had company stock ownership with this client. Therefore, my former husband represented a related interest in accordance with independence standards in Federal Reserve Board Regulation O section 215.4 ( b ). 
On XX/XX/XXXX, First Bank originated a deceiving, abusive and unfair mortgage loan with me, which failed to comply with Public Law 111-203 from XX/XX/XXXX known as XXXX XXXX XXXX Reform and Consumer Protection Act. 
Specifically, First Bank failed to comply with Title XIV-Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act, Sec. 1411. Ability to repay. This section states that : In accordance with regulations prescribed by the Board, no creditor may make a residential mortgage loan unless the creditor makes a reasonable and good faith determination based on verified and documented information, at the time the loan is consummated, the consumer has a reasonable ability to repay the loan, according to its terms, and all applicable taxes, insurance ( including mortgage guarantee insurance ), and assessments. Furthermore, item 4 states that : A creditor making a residential mortgage loan shall verify amounts of income or assets that such creditor relies on to determine repayment ability, including expected income or assets, by reviewing the consumers Internal Revenue Service Form W-2, tax returns, payroll receipts, financial institution records, or other third-party documents that provide reasonably reliable evidence of the consumers income or assets. In order to safeguard against fraudulent reporting, any consideration of a consumers income history in making a determination under this subsection shall include the verification of such income by the use of- ( A ) Internal Revenue Service transcripts of tax returns ; or ( B ) A method that quickly and effectively verifies income documentation by a third party subject to rules prescribed by the Board.

First Bank originated this mortgage loan without requesting the consumers documents as part of the required income verification process. No income tax return, financial institution statement, W-2, nor any other income verification from a third-party document was requested from me. Instead, they only asked me to authorize First Bank to verify my credit on XX/XX/XXXX, for which I agree since it was made in accordance with my understanding that my former husband would be a co-signer. At the closing, I was presented with a co-signer document with my former husbands name, who had represented to me that he was going to apply for a mortgage loan with them. I was deceived in believing that the mortgage was made for both property owners ; Mr. XXXX and me. However, First Bank excluded my former husband from the mortgage loan even though he had the ability to repay the loan, I did not.

Moreover, I have applied for loss mitigation in 18 instances and was able to complete the required loss mitigation documents 7 times, beginning on XX/XX/XXXX and ending on XX/XX/XXXX. Reasons listed by First Bank to deny my loss mitigation applications are my inability to repay, which in fact, it was First Bank who deceived me into believing that the mortgage loan was made to the property owners and since the origination, First Bank failed to verify my ability to repay.

In addition, First Bank failed to comply with the following requirements of 12 CFR Section 1024.41 Loss mitigation procedures during the seven years I have been applying for them : ( b ) ( 2 ) ( i ) ( B ) Notify the borrower in writing within 5 days ( excluding legal public holidays, Saturdays, and Sundays ) after receiving the loss mitigation application that the servicer acknowledges receipt of the loss mitigation application and that the servicer has determined that the loss mitigation application is either complete or incomplete.

o I have not been notified within 5 days after the receipt of the loss mitigation applications.

( b ) ( 3 ) ( c ) ( 1 ) Complete loss mitigation application. Except as provided in paragraph ( c ) ( 4 ) ( ii ) of this section, if a servicer receives a complete loss mitigation application more than 37 days before a foreclosure sale, then, within 30 days of receiving the complete loss mitigation application, a servicer shall : ( i ) Evaluate the borrower for all loss mitigation options available to the borrower ; and ( ii ) Provide the borrower with a notice in writing stating the servicer 's determination of which loss mitigation options, if any, it will offer to the borrower on behalf of the owner or assignee of the mortgage. 
o A foreclosure suit was filed on XX/XX/XXXX without providing any loss mitigation options to any of my applications including one on XX/XX/XXXX application when the house had a purchase offer of {$590000.00}.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation