Consumer complaint received 2025-07-01 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Escrow, taxes, or insurance
Company: JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
State: MN

Complaint narrative:
RE : Complaint Regarding Escrow Servicing Practices by Chase XXXX XXXX Dear XXXX XXXX XXXX, I am writing to file a formal complaint regarding Chase XXXX XXXX recent servicing decisions, which I believe violate both the intended protections of my federal loan modification and my rights under XXXX  XXXX. I have held my mortgage since XXXX. In XXXX, I entered into a loan modification under a XXXX XXXX XXXX consistent with the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), which was designed to ensure long-term payment sustainability by keeping total monthly mortgage obligations- including escrow - at or below 31 % of gross monthly income. Since my modification, I remained fully current for many years. Like many homeowners, I experienced financial hardship during the XXXX XXXX, including a job loss that resulted in a temporary period of delinquency. However, I worked diligently to restore my loan to good standing and am now current on all mortgage obligations. I respectfully ask that this brief hardship, caused by a global public health emergency, not be used to disqualify me from fair servicing terms or protections afforded under federal or state law. Since, Chase removed the XXXX repayment option for my escrow shortage - a critical repayment term that had made my mortgage manageable. This change, made without notice or a clear written explanation, raised my monthly costs significantly and pushed my mortgage payment above the affordability threshold that my original modification was based on. The only alternative offered was to increase my monthly payments by an additional {$320.00} per month. Further, Chase denied my request for an escrow waiver, citing vague XXXX XXXX guidance suggesting that borrowers with prior modifications are ineligible. This reasoning is overly broad, ignores my history of compliance, and conflicts with XXXX XXXX XXXX, Subdivision XXXX, which provides escrow opt-out rights for qualified, current borrowers- especially those with conventional loans like mine. As a senior on a fixed income, I am concerned that Chases servicing changes and broad interpretations of XXXX XXXX policy may be designed to create financial pressure on long-time homeowners, putting them at greater risk of default despite their effort and good faith. I have documentation showing that my mortgage is backed by a XXXX XXXX  investor loan number and that my modification followed federal XXXX guidelines. I am happy to provide other documents to support my case. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I am proud of the effort Ive made to recover from hardship and remain in my home. 

My mortgage was permanently modified in XXXX under a XXXX XXXX XXXX consistent with the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX ). That agreement was not a temporary relief measure- it was a permanent affordability solution structured around very specific federal guidelines. The modification terms were designed to keep my total housing payment ( XXXX  ) at or below 31 % of gross monthly income. Those terms included both affordability protections and fair servicing commitments that still apply under current CFPB rules, including the requirement to : Evaluate borrower hardship before modifying repayment terms ; Avoid abrupt increases in escrow obligations or payment shock ; Maintain the borrowers post-modification affordability over the long term. Chase removed a XXXX escrow shortage repayment plan - which had been critical to keeping my payments manageable - without proper notice or explanation. This action increased my monthly cost well beyond the affordability threshold guaranteed under my modification. Chase also denied my request to waive escrow, despite my eligibility under XXXX  XXXX XXXX, Subdivision XXXX, which grants opt-out rights to conventional borrowers who are current and capable of handling taxes and insurance. These actions appear to undermine federal servicing rules and may constitute an unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice ( XXXX ).

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation