Consumer complaint received 2026-03-26 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — VA mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Payment process
Company: CMG Financial Services, Inc.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I submitted my XX/XX/XXXXmilitary orders to CMG in XX/XX/XXXX5. CMG confirmed receipt and updated my loan under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. On XX/XX/XXXX, I submitted a deferment request via secured email. CMGs agent acknowledged receipt on XX/XX/XXXX, and requested additional documentation. I provided my military orders the same day. CMGs own response to Case XXXX, dated XX/XX/XXXX, acknowledged that the additional documentation requested was not required under the guidelines for a California Deferment , and that this caused a delay in processing. CMGs deferment approval was granted XX/XX/XXXX, effective XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, covering principal and interest payments for that entire period. XXXX confirmed in writing that updates would be provided via secure email due to my inability to receive telephone calls during XXXX. VIOLATION XXXX : UNAUTHORIZED ACCOUNT DRAFT DURING APPROVED AND ACTIVE DEFERMENT PERIOD Despite my approved and active deferment, CMG drafted my bank account on XX/XX/XXXX for a full mortgage payment. CMGs own XX/XX/XXXX response to Case XXXX acknowledged this directly, stating : Our system was incorrectly updated to reflect the XX/XX/XXXX resume date which caused a payment to be automatically drafted on XX/XX/XXXX. CMGs XX/XX/XXXX response to Case XXXX confirmed the deferment did not expire until XX/XX/XXXX, meaning the unauthorized draft occurred XX/XX/XXXX days before the deferment period ended. This unauthorized draft has cascading legal significance. XX/XX/XXXX, drafting a payment from a servicemembers account during an approved deferment period without authorization is inconsistent with the protections afforded under the California Military Families Financial Relief Act and XXXX XX/XX/XXXXXXXX, which prohibits adverse financial action against a servicemember during a period of military service without a court order. XX/XX/XXXX, the unauthorized draft occurred after I had already filed multiple CFPB complaints alleging discrimination and retaliation, making the timing consistent with the retaliatory pattern documented throughout this record.XX/XX/XXXX, and most significantly, CMGs response to the unauthorized draft was to apply the payment to the XX/XX/XXXX installment and then, when I elected not to have a duplicate XXXX payment drafted, to place a manual stop on the account. CMG then used that manual stop, which existed solely because of its own system error, as its XX/XX/XXXX shifting justification for blocking my principal-only payment access for additional months after the deferment ended. CMGs own error in XX/XX/XXXX thus generated a chain of restrictions that CMG subsequently XXXX as justification for further denying me account access. CMGs XX/XX/XXXX response to Case XXXX acknowledged the broader servicing failure with the following statement : We acknowledge that the borrower continues to express dissatisfaction with servicing their loan. Allow us to apologize for any frustration or inconvenience the borrower may have experienced while attempting to address their concerns. The level of service the borrower has received is not typical of the service we expect. Despite this acknowledgment, CMG did not address whether the unauthorized XXXX draft violated the deferment agreement, XXXX XXXX. XXXX, or the California Military Families Financial Relief Act. VIOLATION XXXX : SUSTAINED BLOCKING OF PRINCIPAL-ONLY PAYMENT ACCESS THROUGH XXXX IRRECONCILABLE JUSTIFICATIONS CMG has blocked my ability to make principal-only payments on my VA-guaranteed loan continuously throughout my deployment through a series of contradictory justifications that collectively demonstrate either an absence of a legitimate legal basis or deliberate obstruction. Under XXXXXX/XX/XXXXXXXX, a veteran borrower has the right to prepay a VA-guaranteed loan at any time without penalty. Under XX/XX/XXXXXXXX, servicers must apply payments in accordance with borrower instructions. CMG has violated both provisions repeatedly and has offered XXXX successive irreconcilable explanations for why it could not comply. Justification XXXX : Escrow Must Be Satisfied First. CMGs XX/XX/XXXX response to Case XXXX stated : Any payments applied exclusively to principal must be preceded by full satisfaction of the monthly escrow obligation. CMGs XX/XX/XXXX response to Case XXXX repeated this and cited Deed of Trust section XXXX and California Military and Veterans XXXX Section XXXX. However, during my active deferment the only payment I owed was the escrow amount. I was current on escrow. CMGs XX/XX/XXXX combined response to Cases XXXX and XXXX confirmed : Due to the deferment, the borrowers monthly ACH drafting has been suspended. The borrower can give authorization to remove the ACH automatic drafting information on file. The borrower will then be able to process manual online transactions of their choice. Alternatively, the borrower can make their payments over the phone with an agent. The principal payment option will not be available until the current months escrow payment has been satisfied. Despite being current on escrow, portal access to principal-only payments remained blocked. Justification XXXX : Systemic Deferment Platform Limitation. CMGs XX/XX/XXXX response to Case XXXX abandoned the escrow-satisfaction rationale and offered a completely different explanation : Our servicing center needs to apply the principal and interest portion required to satisfy the monthly payment throughout the deferment period between the first business day of each month through the end of the grace period. A principal-only payment can not be accepted through the online loan portal before the principal and interest payment is applied by our servicing center. This framed the block as an unavoidable technical limitation of the deferment platform itself, entirely unrelated to my escrow status. Justification XXXX : Manual Stop Placed Following Borrower Election. CMGs XX/XX/XXXX response to Case XXXX abandoned both prior explanations and offered yet another : Due to this stop being in effect until the XX/XX/XXXX automatic payment is withdrawn, the system currently restricts the borrower from initiating a principal-only payment online. This limitation is not related to the prior Servicemembers Civil Relief Act ( XXXX ) approval nor is it a retaliation. Instead, it is solely the result of system functionality tied to the manual stop placed to ensure the XXXX payment is not drafted in error. This explanation attributes the block entirely to a manual stop that itself existed only because of CMGs unauthorized XX/XX/XXXX draft. CMG created the condition it used to justify the restriction. This explanation also directly contradicts the XX/XX/XXXX explanation, which attributed the block to an unavoidable deferment platform limitation. Both can not be true simultaneously and CMG offered no reconciliation. Justification XXXX : Escrow Shortage Precondition. Across multiple responses XXXX indicated that an outstanding escrow shortage of approximately {$6900.00} was a basis for restricting payment access, requiring full lump-sum prepayment as a precondition to restoring portal functionality. Requiring a borrower to prepay an escrow shortage in full as a condition of accessing principal prepayment rights is not authorized under XXXX XX/XX/XXXXXXXX ( f ) ( XXXX ) ( XX/XX/XXXX), which governs how servicers may require repayment of escrow shortages, and directly conflicts with XXXXXX/XX/XXXX XXXX unconditional protection of the veterans prepayment right. The practical effect of these XXXX shifting justifications is that I have been unable to make principal-only payments on my VA-guaranteed loan for the entire duration of my XXXX, exceeding XXXX months. Each justification was contradicted by the one that followed. The final justification was rooted in a restriction CMG created through its own unauthorized account draft. This is not a pattern of routine servicing complexity. It is a pattern of successive post-hoc rationalizations that collectively demonstrate no single legitimate legal basis ever existed for blocking my prepayment rights. VIOLATION XXXX : UNAUTHORIZED INSURANCE SUBSTITUTION DURING PROTECTED PERIOD WITH DELAYED AND COMPLAINT-COMPELLED REMEDIATION In XX/XX/XXXX, while I was under an XX/XX/XXXXmilitary deferment and after I had already raised discrimination and retaliation allegations in multiple prior CFPB complaints, CMG processed and disbursed an unauthorized homeowners insurance substitution from my existing XXXX policy to Great Northwest Insurance Company . CMGs XX/XX/XXXX response to Case XXXX confirmed : We received a mid-term substitution from XX/XX/XXXXInsurance company in XX/XX/XXXX. Research showed that this premium was deducted from the borrowers escrow account in error. The unauthorized disbursement totaled {$2200.00}. This represented approximately a XXXX percent increase over my existing XXXX premium of {$1500.00} disbursed on XX/XX/XXXX. CMG did not notify me that this substitution had occurred. I only discovered it after filing a CFPB complaint. CMG acknowledged in its XX/XX/XXXX response to Case XXXX that it provided coaching to our insurance vendor and staff after the fact, confirming the substitution was a vendor-side error processed without my authorization and without adequate controls on CMGs side to prevent unauthorized mid-term policy substitutions on active VA-guaranteed loans during a protected deferment period. CMGs failure to notify me of the unauthorized disbursement violates XXXXXX/XX/XXXXXXXX, which requires servicers to notify borrowers of escrow account changes and shortages. It also violates the duty of fair treatment required of VA loan servicers under XXXXXX/XX/XXXXXXXX and XXXXXX/XX/XXXXXXXX. The timing is additionally significant : the substitution occurred during my active protected period, after I had already filed discrimination and retaliation allegations, and CMG took no proactive steps to identify or correct it. I had to file a federal complaint to discover it. Following discovery, CMG did not proactively credit the interest my escrow account lost on the improperly disbursed funds. I raised this specifically in a subsequent complaint filed approximately XXXX months after the error was identified. CMGs XX/XX/XXXX response to Case XXXX acknowledged : We will accommodate the borrowers request and credit the {$11.00} due to the error that took place with the incorrect insurance disbursement. The {$11.00} interest credit was only provided after aXX/XX/XXXXcomplaint compelled it. CMG had access to the same information I did and chose not to apply the credit until regulatory pressure required it. VIOLATION XXXX : DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION DENIALS WITHOUT SUBSTANTIVE INVESTIGATION, CULMINATING IN WRITTEN ADMISSION The following is the complete verbatim record of every response CMG provided to my discrimination and retaliation allegations. Read chronologically, this record shows a progression from boilerplate statutory denial to complete omission of any legal framework to, finally, an inadvertent written admission of the discriminatory conduct I had been alleging for XXXX months. Case XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Resolution Analyst : We respectfully disagree with the borrowers statement that they have been discriminated and retaliated against because they have requested protections provided in the California Military Families Financial Relief Act. We have found no evidence to support the borrowers allegations with regard to any discrimination and retaliation due to their veteran status or any other characteristic protected under applicable federal or state law. At this stage CMG at least acknowledged the statutory framework under which my protections arise. Case XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Resolution XXXX, and Case XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX : We respectfully disagree with the borrowers allegations that they have been discriminated against and retaliated against because they have requested protections provided in the California Military Families Financial Relief Act. We have found no evidence to support the borrowers allegations regarding any discrimination and retaliation due to their veteran status or any other characteristic protected under applicable federal or state law. Identical language across both responses. No reviewer identified. No legal standard cited. No evidence described. Case XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX Resolution Analyst : No response to retaliation or discrimination allegations was provided at all. The only relevant statement in the entire letter was : Our office must respectively decline the request to reimburse the international calling fees incurred. CMG did not acknowledge the allegations existed. Case XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Resolution XX/XX/XXXX : We respectfully disagree with the borrowers allegations that they have been discriminated against and retaliated against. We have found no evidence to support the borrowers allegations regarding any discrimination and retaliation. This is the most legally bare denial in the entire record. It does not reference veteran status, military service, the XXXX, the California Military Families Financial Relief Act, or any statutory or regulatory framework. The earlier denials at least named the statutes they claimed CMG had complied with. This one does not. Case XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Resolution XXXX : Discrimination and retaliation allegations were not addressed at all. The only response to my requests for accommodation as a XXXX servicemember was : We are unable to accommodate the borrowers request for any other compensation or reimbursement. Case XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Resolution Analyst : This limitation is not related to the prior Servicemembers Civil Relief Act ( SCRA ) approval nor is it a retaliation. Instead, it is solely the result of system functionality tied to the manual stop placed to ensure the XXXX payment is not drafted in error. We apologize for the inconvenience this has caused. On international call costs : With regard to the request for reimbursement of international calling fees, we must respectfully advise that we are unable to compensate for international call charges. While we understand the borrower is currently XXXX, call fees incurred when contacting customer service are not eligible for reimbursement under our servicing policies. No legal authority was cited for either position. Case XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Resolution Analyst : Our records confirm that we have remained responsive through all communication channels provided to the borrower. Our records indicate the borrower has utilized our online messaging portal as well as our online chat feature to discuss their loan. CMG cited online communication activity as evidence of adequate responsiveness while simultaneously maintaining restrictions that required me to use costly international telephone calls for substantive account matters its portal could not resolve. Case XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Resolution Analyst : As previously communicated, we will not provide credit to the borrower for these calls and their assertion that we did not follow the SCRA guidelines in reviewing their account. However, our management team has agreed to provide credit based on the review of servicing and errors on the borrowers account. We will credit {$250.00} to the borrowers escrow account. This final statement is the most legally significant document in the entire record. CMG explicitly tied its refusal to provide credit for international call costs to my assertion that CMG did not follow XXXX guidelines. CMG then granted a separate credit based on general servicing errors while simultaneously maintaining the refusal on XX/XX/XXXX grounds. Under XXXX XXXX. XXXX, no person may discriminate against a servicemember in the provision of any right or benefit on the basis of military service. CMGs own written response documents that my invocation ofXX/XX/XXXX protections was the stated reason a specific benefit was withheld. That is not a defense to a discrimination allegation. It is the discrimination. The {$250.00} goodwill credit does not cure this because it was explicitly granted on different grounds and CMG simultaneously maintained its XXXX-based refusal in the same letter. Across all of the above responses, CMG has not once in twenty-three complaint responses named the individual who conducted the discrimination review, identified the legal standard applied, described what records were examined, or explained why my specific factual allegations do not meet the legal threshold for discrimination or retaliation under XXXX XXXX. XXXX, the California Military Families Financial Relief Act, California Military and Veterans XXXX Sections XXXX through XXXX, XXXXXX/XX/XXXXXXXX. Under XX/XX/XXXXXXXX ( XXXX ) ( XXXX ) (XX/XX/XXXX ), when a servicer concludes no error occurred it must provide the specific reasons for that determination following a reasonable investigation. Repeating identical boilerplate across XXXX responses and omitting the allegations entirely in XXXX others does not satisfy this standard. Either CMG investigated and can not articulate what it found, or CMG did not investigate at all. Both conclusions are legally significant. CMGs XX/XX/XXXX response to Case XXXX contains CMGs own characterization of its conduct : The level of service the borrower has received is not typical of the service we expect. CMG acknowledged in writing that my treatment was substandard by its own internal standards. It then continued the same conduct across XXXX additional complaints without remediation. APPLICABLE LEGAL AUTHORITY This pattern implicates the following statutes and regulations. Under federal law : XXXX XXXX. XXXX (XX/XX/XXXX anti-discrimination ), XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( servicemembers right to protections during military service ), XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXXenforcement authority for pattern or practice XXXX violations ), XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( protection of mortgage obligations during military service ), XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX ) ( RESPA prohibition on adverse action during pending qualified written request ), XXXX XXXX. XXXX and XXXX ( CFPB authority over unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices ), XXXXXX/XX/XXXXXXXX ( escrow account notification and management obligations ), XXXX XX/XX/XXXXXXXX ( XXXX ) ( XXXX ) ( XX/XX/XXXX ) ( reasonable investigation requirement for notices of error ), XXXXXX/XX/XXXXXXXX ( veterans unconditional right to prepay XXXXguaranteed loan ), XXXXXX/XX/XXXXXXXX ( servicer obligation to apply payments per borrower instructions ), XXXXXX/XX/XXXXXXXX ( VA servicer obligation of fair treatment ), and XXXXXX/XX/XXXXXXXX ( VA servicer record maintenance obligations ). Under California law : California Military and Veterans XX/XX/XXXX Sections XXXX through XXXX ( California Military Families Financial Relief Act ), California Military and Veterans XXXX Section XXXX ( misdemeanor liability for willful violations ), California Civil XXXX Section XXXX ( incorporation of federal consumer protection standards ), and California Business and Professions XX/XX/XXXX Section XXXX ( unfair business practices ).

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation