Consumer complaint received 2026-03-31 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — FHA mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — Applying for or obtaining a modification, forbearance plan, short sale, or deed-in-lieu
Company: AmeriHome Mortgage Company, LLC
State: NC

Complaint narrative:
I am an attorney licensed in XXXX and XXXX XXXX I am submitting this complaint on my own behalf regarding my primary residence. I am filing this complaint because AmeriHome Mortgage Company , LLC has committed multiple, documented violations of RESPA/Regulation X ( 12 C.F.R. Part 1024 ) and XXXX servicing guidelines in connection with my loss mitigation application and the pending foreclosure of my home. I am requesting that the CFPB investigate these violations and require AmeriHome to conduct a compliant loss mitigation review, suspend foreclosure activity, and waive fees and charges that accrued as a direct result of its servicing errors. Background I purchased my home on XX/XX/XXXX, with an XXXX loan in the amount of {$530000.00} at a fixed rate of 6.625 %. I made my first two scheduled payments ( XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ) on time. In XX/XX/XXXX, my household experienced two simultaneous financial hardships : my husband 's business failed, and my daughter became seriously ill, resulting in substantial unreimbursed medical expenses. I missed the XX/XX/XXXX payment and, in early XX/XX/XXXX, immediately contacted AmeriHome to apply for loss mitigation assistance. I advised AmeriHome at that time that I had only missed one payment, that I expected my income to increase in XXXX, and that I was seeking any available assistance including deferment of the arrearage, forbearance, or modification that would allow me to resume regular monthly payments. I did not request to stop making payments permanently ; I requested a temporary accommodation for the existing arrearage only. Chronology of Violations Date Event XX/XX/XXXX Loss mitigation application submitted. One payment missed. Income increase and medical expense reduction anticipated for XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Application under review for 55 days. RESPA 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( c ) requires evaluation and notice within 30 days. AmeriHome exceeded this limit by 25 days. XX/XX/XXXX Denial letter issued. The letter demands {$18000.00} by a deadline of XX/XX/XXXX a date three months in the past. This facially impossible deadline renders the notice non-compliant. XX/XX/XXXX AmeriHome emails borrower stating it is 'still actively working on your loss mitigation loan request ' five days after issuing the denial. This deceptive communication misrepresented the status of the application. XX/XX/XXXX Breach / acceleration letter issued. XX/XX/XXXX XXXX referred to XXXX XXXX XXXX for foreclosure. This referral constitutes initiation of foreclosure proceedings while loss mitigation remedies had not been exhausted a dual-tracking violation under 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( f ). XX/XX/XXXX Loan sold to new investor. AmeriHome remains servicer. XX/XX/XXXX AmeriHome agent confirms denial, refers borrower to foreclosure counsel for reinstatement figures, and claims foreclosure counsel is the only party with access to that information. XX/XX/XXXX Notice of Ownership of Mortgage Loan provided. MERS assigns Deed of Trust to AmeriHome. Notice identifies an unnamed trustee as legal titleholder 'on behalf of AmeriHome ' without identifying that trustee. JXXXX XXXX XXXX Borrower contacts AmeriHome 's agent who states 'FHA owns the loan. ' This directly contradicts the XX/XX/XXXX assignment documents. Feb 1012, 2026 Substitute Trustee appointment executed ( XX/XX/XXXX ) and recorded in XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ). Substitute Trustees identified as XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Borrower submits formal Notice of Error under 12 C.F.R. 1024.35 and renewed loss mitigation application with documented income increase ( pay stub attached ). XX/XX/XXXX AmeriHome responds : 'no servicing error occurred. ' Denies reconsideration. States only full reinstatement ( ~ {$33000.00} ) will be accepted. XX/XX/XXXX Borrower 's attorney files formal written reconsideration appeal with documented change in circumstances, including pay stub evidence of income increase. XX/XX/XXXX SECOND DENIAL ONE DAY AFTER APPEAL. AmeriHome ( XXXX XXXX XXXX denies reconsideration within 24 hours of the XX/XX/XXXX appeal filing. The response acknowledges receipt of the pay stub and the documented income increase, but dismisses both by reverting to the payment history argument without conducting any substantive evaluation. A compliant appeal review under 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( h ) ( 4 ) requires up to 30 days of evaluation ; AmeriHome issued its rubber-stamp denial in less than one business day. The same email confirms in writing : " the Substitution of Trustee was executed on XX/XX/XXXX '' directly corroborating that foreclosure counsel 's XX/XX/XXXX representation that her firm already " represents the Substitute Trustees office '' was false. XX/XX/XXXX POST-DENIAL MARKETING ONGOING DECEPTIVE PRACTICE. Five days before this complaint is filed, and 13 days after the second denial, AmeriHome sends another outreach email stating : " preserving homeownership is our top priority '' and offering to " walk you thru a series of questions so that we may understand your unique hardship. '' This is part of an established pattern : AmeriHome systematically sends " we want to help you keep your home '' solicitations to borrowers it has already denied and referred to foreclosure, inducing continued inaction and reliance while advancing foreclosure proceedings. This is a post-denial marketing practice with the capacity to deceive borrowers into foregoing alternative remedies such as XXXX protection, HUD counseling, private reinstatement funding, or legal action. XX/XX/XXXX Date of this complaint. Foreclosure proceedings are active. Borrower has documented ability to resume regular monthly payments but can not pay the lump sum arrearage. Violation XXXX : Failure to Timely Evaluate Loss Mitigation Application ( XXXX C.F.R. XXXX ( c ) ) XXXX received my complete loss mitigation application in early XX/XX/XXXX. Under XXXX C.F.R. XXXX ( c ) ( XXXX ), a servicer must evaluate a complete loss mitigation application within 30 days and provide written notice of the determination. XXXX took 55 days nearly twice the regulatory limit before issuing its denial on XX/XX/XXXX. During this period, I was charged four months of payments, late fees, servicer advances, and attorney fees that would not have accrued had I been timely notified of my alleged ineligibility in XX/XX/XXXX. Had I been promptly notified that I was ineligible due to loan age/payment history, I could have borrowed the one payment then overdue to reinstate the loan. The 25-day delay directly caused the arrearage to grow from one payment ( {$4400.00} ) to four payments plus {$2300.00} in corporate advances, late fees, and legal fees a total now exceeding {$33000.00}. Violation 2 : Dual-Tracking ( 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( f ) and ( g ) ) AmeriHome referred my file to XXXX XXXX XXXX for foreclosure on XX/XX/XXXX. At the time of that referral, no Substitute Trustee had been appointed and the MERS assignment had not been executed. The referral to foreclosure counsel while loss mitigation remedies had not been properly exhausted constitutes a dual-tracking violation under 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( f ). Furthermore, the foreclosure referral preceded the sale and assignment of the loan itself ( XX/XX/XXXX / XX/XX/XXXX ), raising serious questions about the authority under which the referral was made. Violation 3 : Defective Denial Notice ( 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( d ) ) The XX/XX/XXXX denial letter is facially defective. It demands payment of {$18000.00} by a deadline of XXXX XXXX, XXXX ' a date three months before the letter was issued. No borrower can comply with a deadline that has already passed. A compliant denial notice must provide the borrower a reasonable opportunity to appeal and to understand the decision. This notice failed both requirements. Violation 4 : Failure to Properly Respond to Notice of Error ( 12 C.F.R. 1024.35 ) On XX/XX/XXXX, I submitted a detailed Notice of Error pursuant to 12 C.F.R. 1024.35 ( b ), identifying the specific servicing errors described above and requesting corrective action. AmeriHome 's XX/XX/XXXX response which simply stated 'no servicing error occurred " without addressing any of the documented errors does not satisfy the requirements of XXXX C.F.R. XXXX ( XXXX ), which requires the servicer to either correct the error or provide a written explanation of why it believes no error occurred, with specificity. Violation XXXX : Failure to Conduct Required Reconsideration Review In my XX/XX/XXXX reconsideration request, I documented a material change in financial circumstances : a significant and verifiable increase in my income for XXXX, supported by recent pay stubs. FHA servicing guidelines and 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( h ) ( 4 ) require a servicer to conduct a meaningful appeal review and provide written notice of its determination within 30 days. AmeriHome issued its denial the following morning XX/XX/XXXX less than one business day after receiving the appeal. While the response acknowledged receipt of the pay stub and expressly recognized the documented income change, it dismissed both by reverting to the same payment history argument without any new analysis. A 24-hour turnaround is not a compliant appeal review under 1024.41 ( h ) ( 4 ) ; it is a formulaic denial. The same XX/XX/XXXX response contains a written admission that the Substitution of Trustee " was executed on XX/XX/XXXX, '' directly confirming that foreclosure counsel 's XX/XX/XXXX representation that her firm already " represents the Substitute Trustees office '' was false at the time it was made. Violation 6 : Deceptive and Inconsistent Communications AmeriHome 's communications throughout this matter have been materially misleading. Specific examples include : On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX days after issuing its written denial AmeriHome sent an email stating it was " still actively working on your loss mitigation loan request. '' This statement was provably false when made : the denial decision had already been communicated in writing. A borrower who received this email would reasonably conclude no urgency existed to seek alternative remedies such as borrowing the then-minimal arrearage, seeking HUD counseling XXXX or pursuing XXXX protection. By inducing continued reliance and delay, this false communication directly caused the arrearage to grow from one payment ( {$4400.00} ) to the current reinstatement demand of over {$33000.00}. AmeriHome was also preparing the foreclosure referral to XXXX XXXX XXXX during this same period, which occurred three weeks later on XX/XX/XXXX. AmeriHome systematically sent " we want to help you keep your home '' marketing emails throughout the period it was simultaneously denying assistance and advancing foreclosure. Specific instances : XX/XX/XXXX, and XXXX, XXXX ( " loss mitigation options may be available '' ) ; XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ( " potential options to help get your mortgage back on track '' while refusing to accept tendered payments ) ; and most recently XX/XX/XXXX five days before this complaint is filed, and 13 days after the second denial AmeriHome sent an " Attention Needed Don't Delay! '' email stating " preserving homeownership is our top priority '' and offering to " walk you thru a series of questions so that we may understand your unique hardship. '' At the time that email was sent, active foreclosure proceedings were underway and all loss mitigation options had been formally denied twice. This is not isolated miscommunication ; it is a recurring business practice of soliciting borrower contact and inducing inaction through false representations of availability of assistance. AmeriHome 's agent directed me to its foreclosure counsel ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) for reinstatement figures, claiming AmeriHome did not have access to that information. This caused confusion about the proper party to contact and delayed my ability to address the arrearage. AmeriHome 's foreclosure counsel ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ) provided three mutually inconsistent written statements about who she represented : ( XXXX ) XX/XX/XXXX : 'Our office represents the Substitute Trustees office ' ( no trustee had been appointed ) ; ( XXXX ) XX/XX/XXXX : " I do not represent the Lender ' ; ( 3 ) XX/XX/XXXX : 'Our firm has been retained by the Note Holder only. ' These shifting representations prevented me from identifying the party with authority to approve loss mitigation alternatives. AmeriHome 's agent stated on XX/XX/XXXX that XXXX owns the loan. ' This is contradicted by AmeriHome 's own XX/XX/XXXX Notice of Ownership and the recorded MERS assignment, both of which identify AmeriHome Mortgage Company , LLC as the new owner. Violation XXXX : Defective Notice of Ownership The XX/XX/XXXX Notice of Ownership states that 'the above-named trustee holds legal title to your loan on behalf of AmeriHome ' but does not identify who that trustee is. Under 12 U.S.C. 2605 and RESPA implementing regulations, a transferee owner must provide the borrower with clear identification of the new owner and any agent or trustee acting on its behalf. This notice fails to identify the legal titleholder, leaving the borrower unable to identify the party with ultimate authority over her loan.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation