Consumer complaint received 2026-02-09 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure
Company: Rocket Mortgage, LLC
State: AZ

Complaint narrative:
COMPLAINT : RESPA Dual-Tracking Violation & Manufactured Default on High-Equity Estate Property BACKGROUND : I am the court-appointed Personal Representative and confirmed Successor in Interest for this mortgage loan. The original borrower ( my mother ) passed away in XXXX. My sister lived in the home and contributed to mortgage payments until she passed away in XX/XX/XXXX. This created a temporary hardship as the household income that supported the mortgage ceased. The property is currently in probate and has substantial equity ( valued by the servicer at {$450000.00} ). 

TIMELINE OF VIOLATIONS : XX/XX/XXXX - IMPROPER DENIAL OF FORBEARANCE I submitted a hardship letter and loss mitigation application requesting temporary forbearance due to death of household income contributor. On XX/XX/XXXX, Rocket Mortgage denied my request citing " lack of income '' and stating I was evaluated for " Cap and Extend '' and " PRO Modification '' programs. 

VIOLATION : Under XXXX XXXX  Servicing Guide XXXX, death of a borrower/household income contributor is a recognized hardship for which TEMPORARY FORBEARANCE must be evaluated WITHOUT income verification BEFORE income-based modifications are considered. Rocket skipped the required forbearance evaluation entirely and only evaluated income-based modifications, which is a violation of the investor 's required loss mitigation waterfall. 

XX/XX/XXXX - CONTRADICTORY NOTICE ( EVIDENCE OF DUAL-TRACKING ) Two days after sending the " denial/closeout '' letter, Rocket sent a Property Valuation Notice stating the valuation was obtained because I " applied OR QUALIFIED for a loss mitigation option or because we anticipate you applying. '' VIOLATION : This directly contradicts the XX/XX/XXXX denial. If I was " closed out '' on XX/XX/XXXX, why is Rocket stating on XX/XX/XXXX that I " qualified '' for loss mitigation? These contradictory notices evidence dual-tracking - denying assistance on one hand while simultaneously indicating eligibility on the other, creating confusion while threatening foreclosure. 

XX/XX/XXXX - REFUSED CONFORMING PAYMENT ( MANUFACTURED DEFAULT ) On XX/XX/XXXX ( the payment due date ), I attempted to make the regular monthly mortgage payment. Rocket 's online payment system was unavailable. When I called customer service, staff refused to accept my payment, citing a " two-month minimum payment '' policy. 

VIOLATION : This policy does NOT exist in XXXX XXXX  Servicing Guide XXXX ( Payment Application ) or 12 CFR 1024.38 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( Duty to Accept Conforming Payments ). By refusing my timely conforming payment, Rocket is manufacturing default to push the loan past 120 days delinquent - the threshold at which foreclosure referral becomes legally permissible. This constitutes bad faith servicing. 

ONGOING - FAILURE TO TREAT CONFIRMED SUCCESSOR AS BORROWER Despite confirming my Successor in Interest status and receiving my court-issued Letters of Administration, Rocket continues to address critical correspondence to the deceased borrower. 

VIOLATION : Under 12 CFR 1024.30 ( d ), a confirmed Successor in Interest must be treated as the borrower for ALL servicing purposes, including proper addressing of correspondence.

FEDERAL LAW VIOLATIONS : 1. DUAL-TRACKING PROHIBITION ( 12 CFR 1024.41 ( g ) ) Rocket is pursuing foreclosure while loss mitigation is pending. I filed an appeal on XX/XX/XXXX, which means my application is still under review. Rocket can not proceed with foreclosure while this is pending. 

XXXX. FAILURE TO MAINTAIN PROPER SERVICING POLICIES ( 12 CFR 1024.38 ) Refusing conforming payments and failing to evaluate forbearance before modifications violates the duty to maintain policies reasonably designed to achieve proper servicing objectives.

3. FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE INFORMATION ( 12 CFR 1024.35 ( b ) ( 11 ) & 1024.36 ) I requested information about available loss mitigation options for estates. Rocket provided denials instead of information, and the information provided was contradictory ( denied vs. qualified ).

4. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH INVESTOR GUIDELINES XXXX XXXX owns this loan. Rocket is violating XXXX XXXX  Servicing Guide XXXX by refusing to evaluate death-related forbearance. 

EQUITY STRIPPING CONCERN : The property has over {$390000.00} in equity. The pattern of behavior - improper forbearance denial, contradictory notices, payment refusal, rush to foreclosure- raises serious concern that Rocket is manufacturing default to access this equity rather than providing the temporary assistance required under federal law and investor guidelines. 

ACTIONS TAKEN TO RESOLVE : - Submitted hardship letter ( XX/XX/XXXX ) - Submitted loss mitigation application ( XX/XX/XXXX ) - Filed written appeal ( XX/XX/XXXX ) - Attempted to make payment ( XX/XX/XXXX ) - REFUSED by servicer - Mailed formal Notice of Error under XXXX XXXX XXXX via certified mail ( includes certified mail tracking ) - Filing this CFPB complaint - Filing complaint with XXXX XXXX  ( investor/owner of loan ) - Filing complaint with Arizona Attorney General

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation