Consumer complaint received 2024-05-14 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage — Changes in loan terms during the application process
Company: TD BANK US HOLDING COMPANY
State: PA

Complaint narrative:
My wife and I applied for a primary home personal construction mortgage ( refinance of first lien and new build scope ) with TD bank through their PA lending group. 

I provided extensive income information to the lender who pre approved the loan subject to appraisal and emailed me terms including rates. As context my total w2 income for over 3 years was far in excess than the minim requirements. 

We proceeded to go to formal underwriting where we filled out demographic information ( inclusive of my wife being part XXXX ). 

immediately into underwriting the lender called back saying our we were conditionally approved however the conditions were extensive and included things we could not do such as paying off debt and other items never mentioned by the lender. 

In asking how we could be approved but on conditions that didnt make any sense or possible to do she said our income sources were invalid and set extensive information request which all was already provided. This was all know information at initial application to the lender and also I believe to be discriminatory practices to avoid providing a denial through an approval which could not be met of the conditions forcing me to withdraw to keep their denial rates low. 

I articulated my concerns via email and phone to the bank in attempt to validate our income. 

I specifically wrote detailed emails pointing to evidence I provided to clarify any confusion such as signed employment contracts stating income and bonus guarantees in my contracts, and real time HR letters supporting the validity. I am the primary earner with over {$450000.00} in annual income ( loan size was $ XXXX ) however they discredited over {$100000.00} in annual income stating I needed to payoff debt of nearly {$100000.00} ( which included credit card balances which were accurate which I also showed over statement to showing no balances ) versus using my income which is a double negative impact and financial not possible for my wife and I. Again my income and sources was all known to the bank with the same documentation during pre approval and no information changed from our end. 


However the bank then came back pivoting on this to me saying the issue was not me directly but my wife ( who again self identified to be XXXX in part ). They stated the debt to income ratio would have worked regardless of the reduction in my income if they could have used my wifes income. I asked why it wasnt used in full which was stated to me that her source of income and history is unreliable. My wife is a XXXX XXXX who has worked at the same hospital for 7 years at the same wage evidenced in her w2 for multiple years. However her recent paystub has a lower gross amount due to her taking some unpaid vacation and the overall nature of shift work which is flexible. 

I explained all of this in writing to the bank and how she has mandatory work requirements which are mainly in the end of the year paid at time and a half for mandatory holidays like XXXX which ensures the minimum amount I put in the application. 

The bank became overly aggressive on conditions for my wife stating they wanted letters from HR and documentation of declining income and guarantees to minim shifts to make a minimum income for the year which is again not possible for any shift nurse at any hospital. 


I again provided detailed information and her hospital provided a verification of employeed and this was ignored. 

Keep in mind my wife ( again who is a XXXX  ) makes less than $ XXXX a year of our documented nearly $ XXXX total wages for the last few years. Her income is absolutely not required to approve the loan based on my verified income information. 


In my opinion, The bank specifically adjusted my income to illicit a situation to target my wife and again avoid a decline to a minority through conditions that are not possible nor in my belief legal. 

TD is a clear example of unfair lending practiced under regulation B and I believe have violated their requirements through these interactions and should be investigated.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation