Consumer complaint received 2025-06-12 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Other type of mortgage
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage — Changes in loan terms during the application process
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: CO

Complaint narrative:
In XX/XX/, I contacted XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX for a loan on a dental practice ( aka Department of Lousy and Untruthful Lending/Marketing Practices ). XXXX  set expectations very high that the lending process would be flawless and completed in a timely manner, which prompted me to proceed with the offer and start the buying process.

After I brought in a partner, XXXX  did not clearly inform us of the documentation required. They requested another pre-approval for the new structure and a lien on her other private practice, which we agreed toeven though the practice we were requesting financing for was evaluated to be worth more than the requested loan amount.

Two days before closing, XXXX  informed the seller and his agentbefore informing usthat they needed more time and were delaying the closing because they now also needed the lease on my partners practice ( the one they wanted the lien on ) to be valid for the next three years. She has been at that location for 14 years, and even though her lease was set to expire in 9 months, she would have renewed it with no issues. Regardless, this is not a document the bank should have requested two days before closing when they had months to do so.

When the seller and his broker heard ( before we did ) that XXXX  would not finance the deal, they threatened to exit the transaction or charge XXXX XXXX for every month that the closing was delayed. If they had exited the deal, we would have lost over XXXX XXXX in incurred fees. The multiple delays and the unpredictability of the closing process left us with no other option than to clear all our personal savings and proceed with the closing.

XXXX  assured us that once the lease was presented, they would still process the loan and refund the money we had invested. We agreed because XXXX  again set the expectation that once the lease was extended for at least three years, they would finalize the loan, refund the cost of the practice, and issue a loan for the purchase price along with XXXX XXXXXXXX in working capital. Even though we used all our savings, XXXX gave us the assurance that within 23 weeks of receiving the lease, they would finalize the loan and reimburse us.

The lease came back in about three weeks, but XXXX  changed the requirements at the last minute again, now asking for unrealistic insurance that could not be processed or issued. For example, they asked that my partners practice ( on which XXXX wanted to place the lien ) be insured for the purchased practice, even though I have no affiliation with her existing practice. We had our own business and commercial insurance that covered what was needed.

Of course, XXXX  ran my credit againso at this point, I have 4 or 5 credit checks on this matter, and still no resolution.

After speaking with the insurance agency, we were told : " We've been in business for many years. We've never seen something like this. Such a policy can not be processed because XXXX XXXX does not own XXXX XXXX and has no affiliation. Such a request is not legal. '' When we saw that XXXX  was not only constantly moving the goalpostsmaking the process highly unpredictable and stressfulbut also asking for legally impossible things, we lost trust in their professionalism. We did not want to risk placing a lien on my partner 's other practice, as the situation was already a big enough mess, and it would have given them leverage over both practices. 

We counteroffered to take only a refund loan of XXXX XXXXXXXX, which is under the XXXX XXXXXXXX valuation of the technology in the purchased practice. XXXX  insisted that without a lien on my partner 's other practice, they would not issue the loaneven though it was under the value of the financed practice and even though the practice was fully paid for in cash.

This is pure racketeering : demanding a lien on my partners practice, which is not affiliated with the purchased practice, for a loan that is significantly under the practices value. They also stated that they couldn't provide the XXXX XXXXXXXX in working capital eitherleaving us with no options and no working capital for a practice that we purchased based on XXXX  false promise of financing.

They also ran my credit score 45 times over 7 months, affecting my credit history and chances of obtaining financing elsewhere.

I want it to be clear that we would not have purchased this practice if XXXX had not made such strong promises and set high expectations regarding financing. That is also why we did not pursue financing with other banks.

Our accusations toward XXXX  are as follows : 1.False promises/marketing that the loan would be processed, which pushed us into a deal without a safety net.

2.XXXX  did not honor their financing promise, which put us in significant financial distress when we had to close in cash.

3.XXXX  again made a promise to finalize the loan once the lease conditions were met.

4.They failed to fulfill that promise, and we could not recoup the savings we put in at the last minute, which greatly affected both me and my partner.

5.Because XXXX  did not honor the financing, we are now forced to run a dental office startup with very limited resources, causing severe financial and mental stress.

6.Informing the sellers team about the delay before us, depriving us of the opportunity to strategize.

7.Illegal insurance requests and shifting requirements unpredictably by demanding documents at the last minute.

8.Racketeering practices.

9.False marketing of financial products.

10.They caused extreme emotional and financial distress to both of our families.

11.We want XXXX  to pay {$1200.00} for the legal fees incurred strictly due to XXXX  review , plus {$2000.00} in emotional damages.

12.Delete the excessive credit inquiries related to this loan process from my and my partner 's credit history.

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 explanation