Consumer complaint received 2022-07-08 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage — 
Company: AMERISAVE MORTGAGE CORPORATION
State: MD

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX, we filled complaint number XXXX ( see XXXX XXXX  '' attached ) against AmeriSave Mortgage Corporation ( `` AmeriSave '' ). AmeriSave closed the complaint on XX/XX/XXXX and we were not able to view the company 's response or reply to it online. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( " CFPB '' ) mailed us a printed copy of AmeriSave 's response ( see " XXXX '' ) and recommended that we submit a new complaint. 

We do not accept AmeriSave 's response as their explanations are inaccurate, misleading, or ignore the critical points of our complaint. We will provide evidence that AmeriSaves response contradicts previous company statements and does not align with the facts and timeline supported by that evidence. We will also provide evidence supporting our claims that AmeriSave did not meet its fiduciary duty, and failed to comply with current federal laws and regulations.

We do not accept the " monetary relief '' of {$500.00} as it is insignificant compared to the substantial monetary injury resulting from doing business with AmeriSave. 

First, we will lay out the facts and the timeline of events supported with attached evidence. Then, we will summarize current laws and regulations relevant to our complaint. Finally, we will use evidence to highlight the issues with AmeriSave 's response.

Part I Facts and Timeline of Events. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : we received an offer from AmeriSave to refinance our investment property. 

XXXX. Between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, we provided the Loan Officer with all the information required to price the loan. That includes personal financial details, property type, and the fact that we had a Home Equity Line of Credit ( HELOC ) that required subordination. The Loan Officer confirmed multiple times that AmeriSave was aware of the HELOC subordination requirement ( See " XXXX '' attachment as an example ). The Loan Officer guaranteed that, given our excellent credit and finances, we would close in before the end of the year. We declined similar offers from other lenders and accepted AmeriSave 's offer in good faith. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : the XXXX visited the property and completed the appraisal XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : we received the Loan Estimate ( see XXXX XXXX XXXX' attached ) and signed the Loan Terms Agreement ( see " XXXX '' attached ), locking the loan terms with an interest rate of 3.75 % and {$9200.00} in lender credits. We agreed on a mortgage rate significantly higher than the average rates at the time in exchange for the lender credits needed to cover all closing costs, XXXX cash-to-close, and no increase in the loan amount. That same day we indicated to the company our intent to proceed with the transaction. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : AmeriSave sent us a Closing Disclosure with lender credits that were $ XXXX lower than the Loan Terms Agreement. AmeriSave did not disclose a changed circumstance. The document also included incorrect 'Loan Estimate ' amounts in the 'Total Closing costs ( XXXX  ) ' section in violation of section XXXX ( e ) ( 3 ) of TRID rules. During the next XXXX days, our multiple requests for an explanation were unsuccessful. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : AmeriSave 's Loan Officer finally reached out to explain that the Closing Disclosure document from XX/XX/XXXX was incorrect and that AmeriSave was working to resolve the issue ( see " XXXX '' attached ). AmeriSave continued to convey the same message every time we requested an update for the next ten days. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX : we reached out to AmeriSave 's Loan Officer and Loan Processor multiple times, concerned that despite having excellent credit, high net worth, being top percentile earners, and providing all requested documentation within 24-hrs, our loan had not been approved to proceed ( see " XXXX '' attached ). At this point, we were running out of time to close before the Loan Terms Agreement and locked rate expired on XX/XX/XXXX. That day and up to XX/XX/XXXX, we were guaranteed multiple times by the Loan Officer and Loan Processor on a recorded line that AmeriSave would extend the original loan terms as they were solely responsible for the delays. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : TWO WEEKS after we had asked for an explanation around the reduced lender credits, we received a call from XXXX XXXX explaining that the change was because AmeriSave classified the property as a multi-family. We had owned the property for 12 years and had gone through the loan approval process four times ( the original mortgage, two Home Equity Lines of Credit, and a previous refinance ). The property was never considered a multi-family. That day we reached out to the DC Government, the Title Company, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX. They all confirmed that our property was a Single Family with an Accessory Dwelling Unit ( ADU ), NOT a multi-family. Even AmeriSave 's appraisers later confirmed the same. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : less than 24 HOURS after our conversation with XXXX XXXX, we sent him all the evidence needed to resolve the property misclassification issue. XXXX XXXX replied to our email, saying he would send the documents to the underwriter and 'see what he could do for us ' ( see " XXXX '' attached ). XXXX XXXX explained that for AmeriSave to honor the original loan offer and terms agreement, the property type 'issue ' had to be resolved. AmeriSave ignored the evidence for two weeks despite multiple follow-up emails and calls. At this point, we started to worry that this could be a tactic to let the locked rate expire and reprice the loan at a higher interest rate. But AmeriSave assured us that the rate and lender credits would be extended. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : we spoke with the original appraiser and uncovered that ( in the appraiser 's words ) " the 'lender ' had asked him to classify the property as a multi-family. '' He told us that to fix the issue, " the lender had to agree. '' That same day we contacted XXXX XXXX to inform him about our conversation with the appraiser. Coincidentally, XXXX XXXX called the next day to inform us that AmeriSave finally decided to schedule a second appraisal. AmeriSave later denied what the appraiser told us over the phone. But the same appraiser later completed the third and final appraisal and classified the property as a " Single Family Home with an Accessory Unit. '' To this day, the appraiser claims that he always agreed with that classification. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : The appraiser visited the property, completed the appraisal, and confirmed that the property was a Single Family with an Accessory Dwelling Unit. The appraisal was canceled without any explanation after it was completed. It took AmeriSave and the third parties they hired TWO MORE WEEKS to complete a third appraisal on XX/XX/XXXX ( see " XXXX '' attached ). 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : throughout XXXX and up to the morning of XX/XX/XXXX, AmeriSave misled us to believe that the wrong property type was the reason for the reduced lender credits and that fixing that issue would result in a Closing Disclosure showing the original loan terms ( see " XXXX '' attached ). 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX ( afternoon ) : XXXX XXXX called us to let us know FOR THE FIRST TIME that AmeriSave was not planning to honor their offer because of an 'error ' in pricing related to the subordination of the HELOC. XXXX XXXX gave us one business day to accept the new loan terms with lender credits reduced by {$5400.00} and $ XXXX in additional closing costs. Later that day, we received an email from XXXX XXXX suggesting to increase our loan amount to cover the cash-to-close resulting from lower lender credits and increased total costs ( See " XXXX '' attached ). In that same email, XXXX XXXX states that AmeriSave " applied the subordination pricing on XX/XX/XXXX '', clearly stating that AmeriSave had waited FIVE WEEKS to disclose the subordination error. 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : The next business day, we replied to XXXX XXXX 's email, attaching evidence proving that AmeriSave was aware of the subordination before the company issued the Loan Estimate and both parties signed the Loan Terms Agreement on XX/XX/XXXX ( See " XXXX '' attached ). XXXX XXXX reiterated over the phone that we had until the end of the day to accept the new pricing or AmeriSave would cancel the loan. 

XXXX. By XX/XX/XXXX, mortgage rates had increased significantly and now were as high as the rate we were already paying. Similar offers from other lenders ( that we had declined in XXXX ) were no longer available. Our only option at that point was to close with AmeriSave or not refinance at all. Ultimately, and per XXXX XXXX 's suggestion, we had to increase our outstanding mortgage obligation by {$8300.00} to cover the reduced lender credits and increased closing costs. See XXXX XXXX ' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX attached ( see " XXXX  '' attached ). 

XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : as we received the final closing documents, we questioned why the Loan Estimate amounts shown in the final Closing Disclosure differed from the actual Loan Estimate we signed. AmeriSave 's only response was that if we didn't take the offer 'as is, ' they would cancel the loan. The changes made to the Closing Document significantly reduced the amount AmeriSave was legally required to credit us due to the increase in 'Total Closing costs ( J ) ' above the legal limit. Please see attached the original loan estimate showing the 'Total Closing Costs ( J ) '' to be + {$87.00} ( see bottom right of page XXXX in " XXXX  '' ) versus the - {$3800.00} in the " XXXX XXXX '' column of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( see bottom of page XXXX in " XXXX  '' attached ). 

XXXX. At the end of this process, we had lost the rental income and cash flow needed to make the improvements required to rent the property as originally planned. We had to sell the investment property to the first buyer in sub-optimal condition. The resulting ongoing annual losses include {$61000.00} in rental income and $ XXXX in asset appreciation, among others. A significant portion of our capital, revenue, and life savings were tied to this investment property. 


Part II Definitions. 

2.1. Regulation Z ( 12 CFR 1026 ) The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( " CFPB '' ) clearly states that " Lender credits are interest rate dependent changes regulated by Part 1026, Title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations ( " 12 CFR 1026 '' or " Regulation Z '' ) and TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosures ( TRID ) rules. These rules are explicit on that lender credits may decrease only if there is an accompanying changed circumstance or other triggering event under Regulation Z section 1026.19 ( e ) ( 3 ) ( iv ), and the creditor provides the consumer with a revised estimate within three business days of receiving information sufficient to establish that the changed circumstance or other triggering event has occurred. '' * * https : //www.consumerfinance.gov/compliance/compliance-resources/mortgage-resources/tila-respa-integrated-disclosures/tila-respa-integrated-disclosure-faqs/ 2.2. Changed Circumstance A 'changed circumstance ' is defined by Regulation Z under section 12 CFR 1026.19 ( e ) ( 3 ) ( iv ) ** as : ( 1 ) An extraordinary event beyond the control of any interested party or other unexpected event specific to the consumer or transaction. [ 1026.19 ( e ) ( 3 ) ( iv ) ( A ) ( 1 ) ] ( 2 ) Information specific to the consumer or transaction that the creditor relied upon when providing the disclosures required under paragraph ( e ) ( 1 ) ( i ) of this section and that was inaccurate or changed after the disclosures were provided. [ 1026.19 ( e ) ( 3 ) ( iv ) ( A ) ( 2 ) ] ( 3 ) New information specific to the consumer or transaction that the creditor did not rely on when providing the original disclosures required under paragraph ( e ) ( 1 ) ( i ) of this section. [ 1026.19 ( e ) ( 3 ) ( iv ) ( A ) ( 3 ) ]. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX. Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ( UDAAP ) The standard for unfairness in the Dodd-Frank Act has the same three-part test as the FTC Act. This standard was first stated in the FTC Policy Statement on Unfairness. According to these standards an act or practice is unfair when : ( 1 ) It causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers : " Substantial injury usually involves monetary harm. Monetary harm includes for example, costs or fees paid by consumers as a result of an unfair practice. '' ( 2 ) The injury is not reasonably avoidable by consumers : " Consumers can not reasonably avoid injury if the act or practice interferes with their ability to effectively make decisions or to take action to avoid injury. '' " If material information about a product, such as pricing, is modified after, or withheld until after, the consumer has committed to purchasing the product ; however, the consumer can not reasonably avoid the injury. '' " A key question is not whether a consumer could have made a better choice. Rather, the question is whether an act or practice hinders a consumer 's decision-making. For example, not having access to important information could prevent consumers from comparing available alternatives, choosing those that are most desirable to them, and avoiding those that are inadequate or unsatisfactory. '' ( 3 ) The injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition : " To be unfair, the act or practice must be injurious in its net effects that is, the injury must not be outweighed by any offsetting consumer or competitive benefits that also are produced by the act or practice. Offsetting consumer or competitive benefits of an act or practice may include lower prices to the consumer or a wider availability of products and services resulting from competition. '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 

3.1. AmeriSave states in its response : " The initial pricing disclosed to the consumer reflected no subordinate financing and a single-family. '' There are multiple issues with this statement : a ) AmeriSave was aware of the HELOC subordination requirement before disclosing the initial pricing in XX/XX/XXXX. See " XXXX '' attached, where the Loan Officer confirms our agreement to subordinate the HELOC to the Loan Processor. In addition, AmeriSave had access to our credit records that clearly showed the second lien. The HELOC subordination is not a valid changed circumstance as per federal regulations ( See section 2.2 ).

b ) AmeriSave 's statement doesn't align with the fact that in XXXX XXXX, we received multiple offers from other lenders with similar rates and lender credits that included the HELOC subordination.

c ) AmeriSave did NOT disclose that the subordinate financing was not included in the initial pricing until XX/XX/XXXX. AmeriSave waited almost TWO MONTHS until interest rates had skyrocketed to disclose this adverse material information. See section 1.13 for evidence that AmeriSave had been aware of the subordination issue since XX/XX/XXXX. 

d ) AmeriSave 's failure to promptly disclose that they could not provide competitive pricing due to the subordination, hindered our decision-making, and impacted our ability to reasonably avoid substantial monetary injury by selecting another lender when rates were still low. AmeriSave 's actions fail all three parts of the test for unfair and deceptive practices as defined by the FTC and Dodd-Frank Acts ( See section 2.3 ) e ) AmeriSave acknowledges that the loan was originally priced using the correct property type. In addition, AmeriSave had access to the public information needed to classify our property correctly. The property type 3.2. AmeriSave states in its response : " The consumer disputed the 2-unit description, citing it was typical for homes in the area to have basement apartments and it should be labeled as an accessory unit. The matter was escalated to AmeriSave 's management and supporting information was considered. A new appraisal was requested, and the property was labeled as a 1-unit property with an accessory unit on the appraisal dated XX/XX/XXXX which resulted in final updated pricing which was disclosed to the consumer ''. This statement is misleading as it ignores crucial facts and key points from our complaint : a ) AmeriSave disclosed for the first time that the property had been misclassified on XX/XX/XXXX. Within 24 HOURS, we provided AmeriSave with all the evidence needed to correct the issue ( see " XXXX '' attached ). It took AmeriSave FOUR WEEKS ( Until XX/XX/XXXX ) to resolve it, causing the locked rate to expire. 

b ) The property type issue was not a " dispute '' as AmeriSave is trying to present it. A dispute requires disagreement around an opinion. The type or classification of our property is a fact that anyone can easily research in public records, not an opinion open for disagreement or dispute. The truth is that when presented with evidence to correct the issue on XX/XX/XXXX, AmeriSave ignored it for TWO WEEKSthen delayed the process TWO MORE WEEKS by canceling a second appraisal that was already completed. Throughout the process, AmeriSave misled us to believe that the property type was the reason for the reduced lender credits ( see section 3.5 ( b ) ). The company also failed to meet its fiduciary duty by not performing the due diligence needed to resolve the issue in time to avoid the expiration of the locked rate. 

c ) The company failed to meet its fiduciary duty by not making its associates and business partners accountable for the delay and errors related to the property type. Instead, AmeriSave made us pay for those 'errors ' by using them as an excuse to reprice the loan after interest rates had significantly increased.

d ) AmeriSave acknowledges that the loan was originally priced using the correct property type making the property type NOT a valid changed circumstance to reprice the loan as per federal regulations ( see section 2.2 ) 3.3. AmeriSave states in its response : " Upon completion and review of the initial appraisal report, the property was identified as a 2-unit property instead of a single-family home and updated pricing was disclosed to the consumer reflecting this change ''. This statement ignores critical facts relevant to our complaint : a ) The company has acknowledged in previous communications that : " On XX/XX/XXXX, the appraisal management company notified Amerisave that the property was a multi-unit dwelling '' ( see " XXXXXXXX XXXX ). That means AmeriSave waited FOUR WEEKS ( from XX/XX/XXXX until XX/XX/XXXX ) to disclose that the property had been misclassified. 

b ) By XX/XX/XXXX, there was no time to correct the mistake and close the loan before the expiration of the Loan Terms Agreement. Between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, AmeriSave misled us to believe that the original loan terms were still valid. Among others, AmeriSave 's misleading actions include : - Providing a Loan Estimate on XX/XX/XXXX ( See " XXXX '' attached ). 
- Signing a Loan Terms Agreement on XX/XX/XXXX ( See " XXXX  '' attached ). 
- Telling us that the Closing Disclosures from XX/XX/XXXX were incorrect and would be corrected ( See " XXXX '' ). 

XXXX. AmeriSave states in its response : " The consumer spoke with a Sales Manager, XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX regarding pricing concerns. '' We have provided evidence showing that this statement is not true. 

a ) On XX/XX/XXXX, we spoke with XXXX XXXX about the property type misclassification. We did not speak with XXXX XXXX for the first time until XX/XX/XXXX. 

b ) During our conversation on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX DID NOT mention the " inadvertent error in pricing '' due to the subordinate financing. Instead, he explained that the reason for the reduced lender credits was the property type ( See " XXXX '' ). 

3.5. AmeriSave 's response states : " On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX explained there was an inadvertent error and the pricing on the initial Loan Estimate ( " LE '' ) did not properly reflect there was subordinate financing on the property ''. We have provided evidence showing that this statement is not true. 

a ) We first spoke with XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, when he disclosed for the FIRST TIME that an 'error ' in the subordination pricing was the reason for the reduced lender credits. On that call XXXX XXXX also disclosed for the first time that AmeriSave was not planning to honor its offer. 

b ) In his email from XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX states that AmeriSave " applied the subordination pricing on XX/XX/XXXX '' ( See " XXXX '' attached ). That means AmeriSave waited at least FIVE WEEKS ( from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX ) until mortgage rates had increased dramatically to disclose this adverse material information. 

c ) The email from XXXX XXXX also confirms that AmeriSave was aware of the subordination error BEFORE we spoke with XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. Instead of disclosing the subordination 'error ' that day, for OVER A MONTH and until XX/XX/XXXX, AmeriSave misled us to believe that the property type was the reason for the lower lender credits and that fixing it would resolve the loan pricing ( see " XXXX '' attached ). 

d ) AmeriSave 's failure to disclose the reason for pricing changes in the period required by law hindered our decision-making, preventing us from knowing AmeriSave 's actual pricing and comparing it with the competition when mortgage rates were still low. AmeriSave first told us that the pricing changes in the Closing Disclosure dated XX/XX/XXXX were a mistake ( XXXX XXXX ). Then, on XX/XX/XXXX told us that the pricing change was due to a change in the property type ( XXXX XXXX ). The subordination never came up until XX/XX/XXXX. 

3.6. AmeriSave states in their response : " On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX explained that there would be no cash to close due because he had applied a lender credit of {$3700.00} XXXX to offset the closing costs. The lender credit covered one appraisal fee, an appraisal trip fee, and lock extension costs due to the delays getting the loan final approved. '' This statement is inaccurate : a ) The loan terms XXXX XXXX proposed on XX/XX/XXXX, required almost $ XXXX in cash to close. See the email from XXXX XXXX attached ( " XXXX '' ), where he clearly states that our only option to avoid cash-to-close was to increase the loan amount. XXXX XXXX gave us one business day to accept the terms or AmeriSave would cancel our loan. Ultimately, we had to increase our outstanding mortgage obligation by {$8300.00} to pay for the reduced lender and increased closing costs ( see section XXXX ). 

b ) We accepted the initial offer from AmeriSave in good faith because they promised us no cash-to-close or increase in the loan amount. We agreed to pay an interest rate significantly higher than the average rates at the time in exchange for the lender credits to cover those TOTAL costs. AmeriSave still charged us the higher rate without honoring the lender credits. 

c ) By XX/XX/XXXX, interest rates had risen significantly, and shopping for alternative offers from other lenders was no longer financially feasible. That, combined with the losses accumulated through the 2-month painful refinancing process, left us with no choice but to accept XXXX XXXX XXXX ultimatum. 

3.7. America 's response states : " lender credits can not be applied in the excess of loan costs, as it would result in cash back to the consumer. '' This statement is inaccurate and intentionally misleading as we are sure that AmeriSave is aware that : a ) The CFPB is clear that " lender credits are rate dependent charges that may decrease only if there is an accompanying changed circumstance. We have provided evidence that AmeriSave had all the correct information required by federal regulations to price the loan correctly and that there never was a valid 'changed circumstance ''. 

b ) There are no legal limits on how high lender credits can be. We have refinanced many properties and multiple times received cash back from the lender. See attached the Closing Disclosure for another property we refinanced earlier that same year showing {$800.00} in 'cash to the borrower ( " XXXX '' ). But if AmeriSave 's internal policy is that " lender credits can not be applied in excess of loan costs, '' it means the company offered us lender credits for {$9200.00}, knowing they could not honor the offer in the first place. Based on this statement, the original offer we received from AmeriSave represents a violation of fair trade laws, including deception and unfair competition. 

c ) Honoring the original offer would NOT have resulted in cash back to us. The {$5400.00} in lender credits that AmeriSave refused to honor would have gone to cover the cash-to-close and other closing costs as originally agreed ( See " XXXX  '' ). 

3.8 AmeriSave 's response states : " Unfortunately there was also a change in the loan amount before closing. The subordination lender had to be contacted and the subordination updated. '' This statement is misleading : a ) The loan amount changed because AmeriSave suggested the increase as the only way to avoid cash-to-close due to the higher closing costs and reduced lender credits ( see " XXXX '' attached ). 

Part IV Summary of Facts. 

Before signing the Loan Terms Agreement that we accepted in good faith on XX/XX/XXXX, AmeriSave had all the information needed to provide a fair offer and a Loan Estimate compliant with TIRD rules and federal regulations. That includes the correct property type and written acknowledgment of the HELOC subordination requirement. We have provided evidence that the property type and the HELOC subordination are not valid 'changed circumstances ' as defined by federal regulations ( see section 2.2 ).

AmeriSave waited until XX/XX/XXXX, when mortgage rates had increased significantly to disclose for the FIRST TIME that they were not honoring their offer and Loan Terms Agreement because of an 'error ' in the subordination pricing. AmeriSave has acknowledged the company had been aware of the 'error ' in the subordination pricing for at least FIVE WEEKS since XX/XX/XXXX ( see sections 1.13, 3.1 ( c ), and 3.5 ( b ) ).

AmeriSave consistently failed to disclose adverse material information within the period required by federal regulations ( See sections 3.1 ( c ), 3.2 ( a ), 3.3 ( a ), and 3.5 ( b ) ), which resulted in substantial monetary harm to us ( see sections 1.15 and 1.17 ). At the same time, AmeriSave repeatedly misled us into believing that the original loan terms were still valid and would be extended ( see sections 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, and 1.12 ). 

For two months, AmeriSave systematically kept us in the dark by withholding material facts and consistently providing incorrect or misleading information about pricing changes that had a significant financial impact on us ( see sections 3.1 ( d ), 3.4 ( b ), and 3.5 ( c ) ). AmeriSave acts and practices : 1- Caused substantial monetary injury to us as customers. 
2- Hindered our decision-making by preventing us from understanding and being able to compare the company 's actual pricing against the competition.

3- Prevented us from avoiding substantial monetary injury by choosing alternatives available from the competition when interest rates were still low. 

Regulation Z clearly states that locked rate and fees can be reset " If that date expires before an intent to proceed is received from the consumer. '' We have provided evidence that AmeriSave received our intent to proceed and all the documentation required by federal regulations to move forward with the loan ONE MONTH before the expiration of the locked rate. We have provided evidence that AmeriSave is solely responsible for all the actions, practices and 'errors ' that delayed the closing beyond the expiry of the locked rate and the Loan Terms Agreement ( see sections 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12 ). 

AmeriSave did not meet its fiduciary duty by failing to perform the due diligence to timely resolve issues resulting from its actions, letting the locked rate expire while misleading us to believe the original loan terms were being extended ( see sections 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, 1.12 ).

AmeriSave failed to meet its fiduciary duty by not making its associates and business partners accountable for their errors and delays. Instead, the company asked us to increase our outstanding mortgage obligation by {$8300.00} to pay for the reduced lender credits and increased closing costs that resulted from repricing the loan ( without a valid changed circumstance ) when interest rates had risen significantly ( see sections 1.13 and 1.15 ).

AmeriSave provided Closing Disclosures with changed Loan Estimate amounts, failing to comply with TIRD rules and federal regulations ( see sections 1.16 for details ). As a result, AmeriSave avoided crediting the significant increase in 'Total Closing costs ( J ) ' above the legal limit as required by TIRD rules. Without a valid 'Changed Circumstance ', this constitutes a violation of the good faith disclosure standard under 12 CFR 1026.19 ( e ) ( 3 ) ( tolerance violation ).

The substantial monetary injury and financial damages to our family resulting from doing business with AmeriSave go well beyond the {$8300.00} we had to pay for the companys delays and mistakes. At the end of the refinancing process, we had lost the rental income and cash flow needed to make the improvements required to rent the property as originally planned. We had to sell the investment property to the first buyer in sub-optimal condition, which resulted in ongoing annual losses that include {$61000.00} in rental income and $ XXXX in asset appreciation, among others. 

Based on all the incorrect, misleading, and conflicting information provided by AmeriSave in its response, it is clear that the company is not interested in performing the due diligence to properly investigate and address the unfair and deceptive practices we have highlighted with evidence.

Based on the number of similar complaints filed by other customers, we are certainly not the only one injured by AmeriSaves practices. We believe that at this point, the only way to prevent AmeriSave from inflicting the same monetary injury to other customers is for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to investigate AmeriSaves actions. We are mostly concerned that vulnerable groups may be recurring victims of similar unfair and deceptive practices.

Additional evidence in the form of emails and documents is available upon request.

Thank you in advance for your time and attention. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions or need additional information. 

Sincerely, XXXX XXXX

Company public response: Company believes complaint represents an opportunity for improvement to better serve consumers
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation