Consumer complaint received 2025-11-25 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: Better Mortgage, Inc.
State: NC

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/year> Better Mortgage XXXX ( Better ) issued a " Mortgage Written Commitment Letter '' ( Letter ) signed by Borrowers as well as an NMLS registered rep. of Lender. This document states that the lender is " obligated to make a mortgage loan '' under the terms described. The Letter also states " The Commitment is binding on both parties. '' Lender promised Fixed Interest rate was 7.125 % and the lender agreed to pay {$8000.00} in credits to the Borrowers in this agreement. 
Borrowers paid {$750.00} at the time this rate was locked. Payment was purportedly for an appraisal. However, the requirement of this payment as a condition to lock the rate constituted, in the opinion of the borrower, Consideration as required in the formation of a legally binding contract.

Prior and subsequent to entering into the Rate Lock Agreement the borrowers have complied promptly with all requests for information, documents, and explanations. At no time has Lender represented that Borrowers failed to respond in a satisfactory manner, nor has Lender indicated any reason that the Borrowers fail to meet underwriting standards.

Late in the loan process and without consent of the Borrowers, Lender unilaterally changed the terms of the loan. Lender elected an interest rate and lender credits in direct contradiction of the Letter.

It is the Borrowers ' opinion that this is a clear and willful violation of the purportedly binding legal agreement. Furthermore, Borrowers suspect that this is likely a willful violation of the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA. ) Lender 's representative, XXXX XXXX has stated on a recorded line that the promised terms are no longer available. XXXX claimed that the Borrower could only accept the terms as set by Better or withdrawal the application.

Borrower believes that this is factually incorrect and unethical.

Lender 's representatives have claimed at times that Better is " unable '' to fund this loan as an explanation for refusing to honor the agreed upon terms. Borrower maintains that Better 's SEC filings demonstrate sufficient cash on hand to fund the loan. As Lender 's representatives have been unable to demonstrate any legal barrier to issuance of this loan, Borrower can only assume that Better does not prefer the economics of the deal as initially agreed. Therefore, Better is misrepresenting financial self-interest as legal constraint. If correct, this is deceptive, unethical, and likely supports the theory of willful violation of the contract and potentially TILA. 
On XX/XX/year> XXXX XXXX claimed that Better offered the binding legal terms in the Letter due to an error by Lender in the estimation of taxes and insurance cost. He claimed that this error constitutes a Change in Circumstance that allows Better to change the terms. Borrower maintains that incompetence by Lender does not absolve them of their contractual obligation. 
Borrowers wish to proceed under the terms of the contract as agreed on XX/XX/year>, as Borrowers believe to be their legal right.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation