Consumer complaint received 2020-02-06 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — 
Company: SUNTRUST BANKS, INC.
State: MD

Complaint narrative:
My husband and I originated a loan on a condo in Washington D.C. with Suntrust in XX/XX/XXXX. An escrow account was implemented at closing. In XX/XX/XXXX, we received a notice of delinquency from Washington D.C. 's Office of Tax and Revenue ( OTR  ) related to unpaid second half XXXX taxes. We contacted Suntrust regarding the unpaid property tax and Suntrust insisted the property tax on our parcel had been paid in XX/XX/XXXX. We reviewed publicly available records for our parcel and it was clear the property taxes had not been paid. Not wanting to risk further deficiency with the city, we remitted the property tax payment from our own, non-escrow bank account, including overdue and interest fees amounting to {$130.00}. 

In XX/XX/XXXX, I received our annual Escrow Disclosure Statement from Suntrust. The statement notified us that our escrow balance was in shortage and that our payment would be increased. I found it unlikely that we could be in shortage so soon after the loan origination when none of our expenses had increased. I reviewed the statement and noticed a payment of {$2600.00} made on XX/XX/XXXX by Suntrust out of our escrow account. This was allegedly for city tax paid. I knew this amount was erroneous because our property tax bill at the time was only {$930.00}. I reviewed the D.C. OTR website for payment records and realized that Suntrust had erroneously paid property taxes out of our escrow account on a parcel not owned by us, but with a similar address. This accounted for the {$2600.00} payment out of our escrow account that had resulted in a shortage. I notified Suntrust immediately and after much back and forth over 45+ days and spending more than twenty hours trying to remedy the issue, we were issued a escrow refund on XX/XX/XXXX in the amount of {$2800.00}. This refunded amount was comprised of the {$2600.00} that had erroneously been paid on another parcel, plus the {$130.00} we paid in late fees in interest for the property tax being unpaid on our parcel. This refund caused our account to be in surplus over the statutory maximum of funds that can be held in escrow, so we received an escrow refund on XX/XX/XXXX of {$2200.00}. We considered the issue resolved and did not experience any issues in our escrow account after the events described here. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, my mother in law ( not a member of our household and a party entirely unrelated to this issue ) was contacted by a debt collector called XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( " XXXX '' ). When the information was passed along to me, I contacted XXXX and spoke to a very rude woman named XXXX XXXX. XXXX had very little information about the debt and only indicated that we owed {$2600.00} to a " XXXX. '' We did not know who or what XXXX was. XXXX XXXX did not have additional information about the debt or what it pertained to. Her only information was that it was a " mortgage processing thing. '' I contacted XXXX and after nearly 2 hours of attempting to figure out where this debt may have originated from, I was directed to the property tax department, where XXXX  processes property tax payments on behalf of mortgage companies. XXXX is the company that erroneously processed the property tax payment on the incorrect parcel in XX/XX/XXXX. After speaking to XXXX  XXXX at XXXX, we discovered that XXXX   alleges that we owe {$2600.00} in relation to the property tax payment from XX/XX/XXXX because XXXX, at Suntrust 's request, issued an " escrow advance '' to Suntrust in relation to our account in XX/XX/XXXX in an amount equal to the disputed amount of {$2600.00}. It should be noted that this advance request was not authorized or requested by my husband or myself, nor did we receive any communication on the matter from Suntrust. It is XXXX 's belief that Suntrust subsequently received reimbursement for the erroneous payment from the D.C. OTR, and had then disbursed those funds to our escrow account in addition to the original XX/XX/XXXX refund. As you can see from reviewing our attached escrow statement, my husband and I have only been reimbursed initially for the erroneous payment, back in XX/XX/XXXX. There has been no " double payment '' of any fees that may have been recouped by Suntrust from the city or any other source. However, XXXX alleges that Suntrust has advised that they must seek reimbursement of the advanced amount from myself and my husband, despite the fact that we have no relationship, contractual or otherwise, with XXXX, did not request the advance on the escrow that Suntrust requested, and have not received any additional funds from Suntrust in our escrow account. We never received any of the mailed communications that XXXX alleges were sent out in the second half of XXXX. These communications are attached for your review. We have attempted, unsuccessfully, to resolve this issue with both Suntrust and XXXX. 

This egregious error represents a mishandling of our escrow funds and a breach of Suntrust 's fiduciary duty to its clients. XXXX has no reasonable basis to assert that a debt is owed by us to XXXX, as XXXX did not require Suntrust to provide any evidence that it had disbursed funds to our escrow account. XXXX wrongfully turned this matter over to a very aggressive and intolerable third party collector without any basis for establishing that a debt was owed. My husband and I have spent 40+ hours of our time to date trying to resolve this issue and it has caused us a great deal of stress and anxiety. Responses from XXXX and Suntrust to date have not been adequate and the issue remains unresolved. XXXX has asked that the debt collector put a hold on seeking collection on our account, but has refused to clear the debt from our account, despite acknowledging that there is no evidence that we owe a debt to XXXX.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief