Consumer complaint received 2018-10-03 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — 
Company: JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
State: NV

Complaint narrative:
In approximately XX/XX/2018, Chase purchased my mortgage loan. My mortgage payment under both my previous mortgage lender and since XX/XX/2018 with Chase has been {$2500.00}. I received my annual escrow analysis from Chase, dated XX/XX/2018. The escrow analysis indicates that I am receiving a refund in the amount of {$1100.00} BUT that with this refund my mortgage payment will be increasing on XX/XX/2018 to {$2600.00} in order to meet my obligations from my escrow account. The review statement indicates that my prior monthly escrow deposit was {$470.00} and my new monthly escrow deposit will be {$590.00}. I contacted Chase directly to ask if I may pay the difference in my monthly escrow deposit as a lump sum into my escrow account so that I may avoid the monthly mortgage payment increase. I was told this was NOT an option. Despite the fact that the escrow account are in fact MY funds that are being held by Chase. Further, Chase has advised that this increase is because they have started to pay my Special District Taxes ( which I did not agree to be part of the payment from my escrow account with my previous mortgage lender, I paid those on my own ) which has resulted in an increased payout over the next year ... .essentially what would result in a " shortage ''. The Chase mortgage website FAQ 's indicate that in the event of a shortage that a consumer may make an additional lump sum payment to their escrow account to avoid an increase in the monthly obligation ( see the attached print out ). I am wondering WHY that option is not available to me since clearly there is a " projected shortage '' in my escrow account and that is the reason for the increased monthly payment. I am an attorney that deals in consumer rights and creditor protection by trade. I am aware that RESPA, specifically 12 CFR 1024.17 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( ii ), allows for a mortgage lender to retain up to two months monthly escrow payment for a " cushion '' to avoid a shortage. In fact, it appears that if Chase had retained my refund of {$1100.00} for a cushion in my escrow account that it is actually less than the two month escrow deposit under my new payment ( which is based on the projected payout over the next calendar year ). Therefore, it is my position that Chase could have retained this refund and only slightly increased my monthly obligation and still pay out the county tax, the mortgage insurance and the newly added special assessment taxes it decided to pay upon purchase of the loan. Instead, it is Chase 's position that although the escrow account is holding my funds, that I CAN NOT make a deposit to readjust my monthly obligation. This seems borderline usurious in an attempt to raise a consumer 's monthly obligation in bad faith EVEN AFTER a consumer calls into Chase, is aware of her rights and is willing to pay the " projected shortage '' in advance. Chase offers an option on the escrow analysis statement to apply the refund to the mortgage as an additional principal payment, because Chase would retain 100 % of those funds, however Chase has forbidden a mortgage holder from making an additional deposit to an escrow account, which is purely voluntary AND of no benefit to Chase.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation