Consumer complaint received 2025-01-18 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage — Application denials
Company: Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc.
State: CO

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX, my attorney XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX managing partners, sent a letter to XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, outlining the actions taken by the loan servicer that constituted Unfair, Deceptive or Abusive Acts or Practices ( UDAAP ) under the Federal Trade Commission, concluded by myself and XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

After failed attempts by my Attorney XXXX XXXX to find an amicable resolution to this matter, I am sending this letter, which serves as official notice under the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Error Resolution Notice under 12 C.F.R 1024.35, requesting an investigation of the UDAAP errors outlined in my original letter to XXXX XXXX and below : Non-disclosure of loan type, guidelines and other sub-servicer owning 90 % of loan error : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, sent a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX to the Department of Regulatory Agencies ( DORA ) in response to XXXX XXXX 
XXXX complaint to DORA regarding a loan assumption for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, CO. In this letter, XXXX XXXX contends that XXXX XXXX XXXX uses XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on all portfolio loans to ensure members are treated equitably and under similar guidelines as Government Sponsored Entities ( GSEs ) since most of the credit union loans are purchased by GSE investors. However, it was not disclosed to XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX that XXXX XXXX XXXX would use XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in connection with their mortgage loan. In fact, it was in the XX/XX/XXXX, to DORA from XXXX XXXX where XXXX XXXX XXXX ever admitted, in writing, that it treated the subject loan ( which, of course, is not a XXXX XXXX loan ) as a XXXX XXXX loan. 

Had XXXX XXXX XXXX properly notified its borrowers that this mortgage loan would be treated as a XXXX XXXX loan when they applied for the loan, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX would have pursued another mortgage loan with another lender. 

Moreover, XXXX XXXX claims in the letter to DORA that XXXX XXXX XXXX adheres to investor guidelines to maintain equitable practices rather than allow credit union staff discretion is belied by communications between XXXX XXXX XXXX staff and XXXX XXXX 
XXXX and XXXX XXXX, including : XXXX XXXX emailed XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, stating that assumption decisions are up to the investor and the investor denied it. I sometimes see assumptions granted with a divorce decree and on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX also stated via email, A qualifying assumption would be the only way to remove her ( XXXX XXXX ) as a borrower on the loan and assumptions are done on a case-by-case basis by our sub-servicer. 

XXXX XXXX, Associate General Counsel and Compliance Officer stated in an email on XX/XX/XXXX, your loan is held by an investor that doesnt allow the type of assumption are you requesting and in another emailed on XX/XX/XXXX, stated We are unable to allow assumption based on the application you provided. We do follow investor guidelines that do not allow assumptions for the scenario you requested. 

XXXX XXXX, Senior Vice President Mortgage, after pressing my client XXXX XXXX 
XXXX into a phone call to explain the bank 's position, emailed on XX/XX/XXXX, stated, Please find the information below. The information was a link to the XXXX XXXX XXXX with Reference Page XXXX see snippet below, but never put in writing XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX loan adhered to the guidelines she put in her email. 

XXXX XXXX also stated in the XX/XX/XXXX, letter to DORA, XXXX XXXX did request an exception to the credit unions inability to allow assumptions on second home properties knowing that the loan is held in the credit union portfolio. XXXX XXXX did not ask for an exception, only a loan assumption, as she was unaware of any loan guidelines that would prevent a loan assumption. 

XXXX XXXX responded to XXXX XXXX letters to DORA dated XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, and XXXX XXXX responded to XXXX XXXX letter stating, First, the Credit Union did not represent to XXXX XXXX that her mortgage loan adheres to the XXXX XXXX guidelines. The Credit Union did however, state that as the mortgage servicer, XXXX XXXX XXXX uses XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX to service its portfolio loans. At the time of my prior response to your office ( DORA ), it was my understanding that XXXX XXXX loan was held in the Credit Unions own loan portfolio. I have subsequently been informed by our servicing team that a 90 % participation interest in XXXX XXXX loan is actually service for and held by another credit union investor. 
The Credit Union is required under the terms of its Participation Agreement with that credit union to utilize the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and its embedded rules for all loan. This omission by XXXX XXXX acknowledges he and his staff did not research the XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX loan guidelines until a formal DORA request was filed. Had XXXX done the appropriate due diligence when XXXX XXXX first applied for the loan assumption, it would have been disclosed in the first denial letter in XX/XX/XXXX the loan was not assumable, in which case my client would have opted for the refinance terms XXXX  offered or shopped it out to another bank for better terms. Either way, I, XXXX XXXX would have refinanced in XX/XX/XXXX. 

Non-disclosure loan was not assumable error : XXXX XXXX reference in his letter to DORA on XX/XX/XXXX, to what occurred when the co-borrowers requested a loan assumption in XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX is incomplete. In fact, as evidenced by XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, letter to DORA, when, in XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXX applied with XXXX XXXX XXXX for a mortgage loan assumption, XXXX XXXX XXXX expressly advised its borrowers to reapply for the loan assumption after XX/XX/XXXX. If this loan was not assumable between co- borrowers, XXXX  XXXX XXXX had an affirmative obligation to make that disclosure to its borrowers at the time, rather than mislead them into believing they would be able to proceed with the loan assumption after XX/XX/XXXX. 

XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX relied, to their obvious detriment, on XXXX XXXX XXXX misleading communication of XX/XX/XXXX. Had XXXX XXXX XXXX disclosed to its borrowers that this assumption application would be denied on reapplication, its borrowers could have, and would have, refinanced at the interest rate in place at that time with XXXX, who quoted XXXX XXXX 3.75 % interest rate to refinance, or another lending institution. XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX have suffered tangible damage because of XXXX XXXX XXXX non-disclosure. 

Non-disclosure loan was not assumable due to home not being a primary residence error : In XXXX XXXX DORA letter on XX/XX/XXXX, he stated that, XXXX XXXX servicing guidelines do not allow mortgage assumptions where the property is not the borrowers primary residence. To be clear, at the time of the loan application and subsequently the applications for the loan assumption, XXXX XXXX occupied the subject property, and she continues to occupy the subject property on about a half-time basis but not as a primary residence. It is unclear what guidelines you were relying upon, as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), provides, in pertinent part, that XXXX XXXX requested assumption of this loan should have been allowed because XXXX XXXX fully intended to continue to occupy the property twelve months after the mortgage loan was closed. 

A lender XXXX XXXX works with regularly and confirmed this with a team member of the XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( using their toll-free number : XXXX ) that the property did not have to be a primary residence and that the bank should allow the assumption. The team member advised the lender if the borrower in question could not get the loan assumption approved, the borrower should call XXXX XXXX so they could intervene. 

However, since its not a XXXX XXXX loan, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX can not ask for official XXXX XXXX help. 

Additionally, XXXX XXXX, who first represented XXXX XXXX on this matter, had substantial communication with XXXX XXXX on this matter, and asked multiple times if they could call XXXX XXXX together, with her as a silent participant, to have a XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX define and interpret XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) to confirm what was relayed to XXXX XXXX lender while XXXX XXXX was a silent participant on the call, but XXXX XXXX ignored this request. Since only lenders can have XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX interpreted, borrowers must solely rely on what their lender tells them and, in this case, conflicted with what was stated by a XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, hence XXXX XXXX request to gain clarification with XXXX XXXX together. 

Today I contacted Dovenmule Mortgage, who is the sub-servicer of this loan, and who I applied for the loan assumption with ( see Email to apply for loan assumption with Dovenmule attachment ), yet they stated they had no documentation for the loan assumption application. At this point, I'm uncertain if there was a proper review of the first and second loan assumptions. Had there been a proper review of the loan terms, we as the consumers would have been told in our request for a loan assumption on XX/XX/XXXX the loan was not assumble. 

Thank you in advance for reviewing this complaint.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation