Consumer complaint received 2025-03-13 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Struggling to pay your loan — Problem after you declared or threatened to declare bankruptcy
Company: M&T BANK CORPORATION
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
Introduction, see page 2 Grounds for Punitive Damages, see page 8 A Recap, see page 9 Loan Estimate and Closing Disclosure per TILA, see page XXXX  Key Issues, see page XXXX  Financial Impact, see page 13 Requested Legal Remedies, see last page, 13 SUBJECT : Legal Representation Request for TILA Violation and Predatory Lending Case involving M & T Bank and its underwriters. PREDATORY LOAN MADE TO XXXX COUPLE. 

Dear licensed XXXX  attorney with experience in predatory lending : We, aged XXXX, are seeking the legal expertise of a licensed XXXX  attorney experienced in predatory lending, as this case is a clear-cut violation of established TILA laws. M & T Bank issued a predatory loan to a XXXX couple, fully aware that the loan would inevitably implode within XXXX years after consummation, when the couple transitioned from full-time employment to relying solely on their combined Social Security income. The bank made no consideration for the couples financial well-being, despite knowing their income would drastically decrease upon retirement, expected within XXXX years after the loan was finalized. Furthermore, the bank failed to adhere to the TILA " ability to repay '' requirements under 15 U.S.C. 1639c ( a ), which mandates lenders to ensure that borrowers have the ability to repay the loan. Additionally, the bank ignored the couples staggering debt-to-income ratio of 125 % at the time of loan approval, far exceeding the 41 % debt-to-income ratio cap established under the TILA regulations, specifically 12 C.F.R. 1026.43 ( e ), which sets limits on acceptable debt-to-income ratios for loans. 
Our case involves M & T Bank and its underwriters, operating its headquarters in XXXX, XXXX, and we need a Maryland-licensed attorney to represent us in a legal action against their underwriters. 
WHO DO WE WANT TO SUE? The finance company XXXX M & T Bank, and its underwriters, which are headquartered as stated per Plaintiffs loan contract : Assignment : This [ Retail Installment ] Contract and Security Agreement is assigned to M & T Bank, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, phone XXXX. XXXX : XXXX M & T bank in all XXXX states? It operates XXXX branches in XXXX states and XXXX XXXX XXXX the XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXs XXXX from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Until XX/XX/XXXX, the bank 's holding company was named XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX M & T Bank has been profitable in every quarter since XXXX. 

INTRODUCTION : In XX/XX/XXXX, the Plaintiffs, a married couple aged XXXX, purchased a XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  for {$85000.00} with the intention of using it as their primary residence. This XXXX loan, with a monthly payment they could not sustain long-term, was approved despite the Plaintiffs financial vulnerabilities. Despite having excellent credit and a 10 % down payment, the Plaintiffs were preparing for retirement in XXXX or XXXX, and their income was set to drop dramatically from approximately {$20000.00} per month to just {$3400.00} per month, before taxes, from their combined Social Security. They had no assets nor reserves. 

Prior to securing the {$85000.00} loan, the XXXX had an alarming debt-to-income ratio of 125 %, far exceeding the 41 % cap set by the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ). According to TILA, lenders must assess a borrowers ability to repay the loan before approval ( 12 C.F.R. 1026.43 ). TILA mandates that lenders verify income, evaluate a borrowers debt obligations, and ensure that the borrower can reasonably meet the terms of the loan without undue hardship ( 12 C.F.R. 1026.43 ( c ) ( 2 ) ). The Plaintiffs had every intention of paying off their existing debts before retiring, yet their financial situation took a drastic turn for the worse when the male Plaintiff lost his sole source of income just XXXX months after the loan was consummated in XX/XX/XXXX. Without reserves, assets, or any other income to rely on, they were left in a position where they could not meet the obligations of the {$85000.00} loan or manage their existing debts. 

From the outset, this loan was predatory. The Plaintiffs were already financially overextended when they agreed to this loan at the ages of XXXX, and M & T Banks underwriters knew it. The loan was structured to fail, with no feasible plan to repay such a substantial debt given the Plaintiffs ' imminent reliance on Social Security income. This lack of foresight, combined with the banks disregard for the Plaintiffs financial well-being, demonstrates the predatory nature of this loan. M & T Bank 's actions were deliberate, and they knowingly set the Plaintiffs up for failure. 

This case is a clear example of financial exploitation, and it presents an opportunity to hold M & T Bank accountable for its actions. The Plaintiffs financial devastation is not just a consequence of misfortune, but the result of a predatory loan designed to trap them in an untenable position. We urge you to consider taking this case on, as it highlights a blatant disregard for the Plaintiffs ' financial security, as well as a clear violation of TILAs ability-to-repay requirements ( 12 C.F.R. 1026.43 ). M & T Bank 's actions violate responsible lending practices and demand legal action. 

We, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, a married couple aged XXXX at the time of loan consummation in XX/XX/XXXX, are seeking a licensed XXXX  attorney. We have been subjected to predatory lending practices that involve clear violations of the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ), causing significant financial hardship. 

This case involves a {$85000.00}, XXXX loan for a XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX which was misclassified by M & T Banks underwriters as a `XXXX vehicle loan, '' despite its residential nature and our explicit intent to use it as our primary residence. This misclassification allowed M & T Banks underwriters to bypass crucial TILA protections, particularly the ability to repay requirements outlined in 12 CFR 1026.43.

Under TILA, lenders are required to assess the borrowers ability to repay the loan before extending credit. This includes verifying income, future income, assets, reserves, calculating the debt-to-income ratio, and evaluating the borrowers ability to manage debt responsibly. 

THIS ATTORNEY SHOULD NOTE that while the Plaintiffs intended to retire in XXXX or XXXX with their debts fully paid off, their financial situation drastically changed shortly after the consummation of the {$85000.00}, XXXX loan in XX/XX/XXXX, when they were both XXXX XXXX XXXX. Less than XXXX months after the loan was finalized, the male Plaintiff, who had been working as a contractor, lost his ability to continue working. This unexpected loss of income left the Plaintiffs with a mounting pile of debt and no financial reserves or assets to fall back on. They found themselves in a dire financial position, unable to meet their obligations, and with no means to recover. 

What is even more troubling is that M & T Banks underwriters were fully aware that the Plaintiffs had no reserves or assets to fall back on in case of financial hardship. Despite this, they approved the loan, fully aware that any significant change in the Plaintiffs ' incomesuch as the male Plaintiffs loss of workwould leave them unable to manage the substantial debt burden. This demonstrates a complete disregard for the Plaintiffs ' financial stability and future, contributing to a rapidly deteriorating financial situation shortly after the loan was consummated.

While the Plaintiffs have not yet defaulted on the loan, they have been forced to make late payments, which have negatively impacted their FICO scores. Additionally, while the Plaintiffs have not yet fully transitioned to living solely on Social Security income, they will begin receiving their Social Security benefits in XXXX and plan to retire at that time and will have no ability to keep making this {$85000.00} XXXX loan payment. This impending reduction in income further underscores the unsustainable nature of the loan, which was clearly unaffordable even before the significant changes in the Plaintiffs ' financial situation. 

Since the Plaintiff was forced to cease working as a XXXX just XXXX months after the loan was consummated, his income has significantly decreased to {$1000.00} per week. Both he and his wife, now XXXX, have managed to secure low-paying jobs ; however, their combined earnings are insufficient to cover their mounting financial obligations. As a result, they find themselves in a constant struggle to meet their obligations, often having to " XXXX XXXX to pay XXXX. '' This has led to late payments on the loan and a substantial deterioration in their credit, further compounding their financial distress. 

Despite these significant financial realities, M & T Banks underwriters approved a {$85000.00}, XXXX loan for an XXXX, which carried a monthly payment of {$800.00}, not including the additional {$150.00} per month for XXXX insurance and {$900.00} per month for parking ( excluding utilities ). This loan added an additional {$1800.00} in fixed monthly expenses for the Plaintiffs, without accounting for their already overwhelming debts. 

At the time the loan was consummated, the XXXX Plaintiffs were already in a precarious financial situation. The male Plaintiff was burdened with a {$1200.00} monthly truck payment for the next XXXX years, {$350.00} in monthly truck and car insurance premiums, and credit card debt approaching {$10000.00}. Additionally, he was paying off a {$7000.00} loan for a work trailer, which would take another XXXX years to fully settle. These significant existing obligations, combined with the new XXXX  loan, put the Plaintiffs in an extremely vulnerable financial position. Their monthly rent at the time of the {$85000.00} XXXX loan consummation was $ XXXX. 

What makes this situation even more alarming is the male Plaintiffs debt-to-income ( DTI ) ratio *prior to* the consummation of the {$85000.00} XXXX loan, which stood at an unsustainable 125 % far exceeding TILAs 41 % cap for loan approval. In addition to personal debts, the male XXXX had substantial business expenses, including weekly employee payroll, workmans compensation insurance, liability insurance premiums, and state and federal tax obligations. With such a high DTI ratio, the Plaintiffs were clearly financially overextended. Yet, M & T Banks underwriters failed to properly evaluate this critical factor. Approving a loan of this size, when the Plaintiffs were already overwhelmed by existing debt, was not just irresponsible ; it was a clear violation of prudent lending practices. The {$85000.00} loan should never have been approved, and M & T Banks failure to assess the Plaintiffs ' ability to repay the debt only worsened their already fragile financial situation. 

Before the loan was consummated in XX/XX/XXXX, the Plaintiffs were already financially struggling. The weight of their existing debt should have been a significant red flag, making the approval of this loan by M & T Banks underwriters even more irresponsible. They were fully aware that the Plaintiffs were already carrying a heavy financial burden and would be unable to take on additional obligations, especially given their impending retirement and drastic reduction in income in the next XXXX years. Yet, M & T Bank proceeded with the loan approval, which knowingly placed the XXXX in a position where they were set up for failure when they retired in XXXX or XXXX. 

M & T Banks underwriters knew this. They understood that, with such a drastic reduction in income just around the corner, the Plaintiffs would not be able to sustain this XXXX loan for {$85000.00}. Yet, despite the obvious financial distress they were facing, the loan was approved without any meaningful assessment of their ability to repay. The banks underwriters were fully aware that the XXXX would likely default on this loan within a few years, and the outcome would ultimately be repossession of the XXXX  a vehicle the bank intended to reclaim once the Plaintiffs could no longer afford the payments. 

This loan was not just unaffordable ; it was deliberately designed to fail. M & T Banks underwriters, fully aware of the XXXX financial situation, chose to ignore the clear red flags, approving the loan in favor of securing a 10 % down payment, knowing that default was inevitable. This was not a mistake or oversight ; this was a predatory loan, structured with the intent to repossess the RV in the near future once the Plaintiffs could no longer meet the terms. 

This case is not just about violations of XXXX. It is about holding M & T Bank accountable for knowingly placing the XXXX in a situation where they could not succeed. This is a clear case of predatory lending, and there is an urgent need for legal recourse to address the harm done to this couple. 
Despite the XXXX clear intent to use the XXXX  as their home, M & T Banks underwriters misclassified the loan as a " vehicle loan, '' intentionally bypassing essential protections under the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ), 15 U.S.C. 1639h, and its implementing regulation 12 CFR 1026.43. These protections would have required M & T Bank to assess the Plaintiffs ' ability to repay the loan, per TILA, a step that could have easily revealed the loans unaffordability. 

This is a textbook example of a predatory loan. The misclassification of the loan, combined with M & T Banks failure to properly assess the XXXX ' financial situation, demonstrates a complete disregard for their well-being. The Plaintiffs, who were on the cusp of retirement and about to rely on a fixed income, should never have been extended such a loanone that would leave them XXXX XXXX XXXX by the time the final payment was due, having lived solely on their combined Social Security income for XXXX of those XXXX  years. 

GROUNDS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES This misclassification, failure to assess the Plaintiffs ability to repay, and deceptive closing process represent not just a breach of legal obligations, but a clear injustice that has severely impacted the Plaintiffs ' financial stability and future. The loan, granted under unaffordable terms despite the Plaintiffs ' excellent credit and clear intentions to secure a home, has left them facing significant financial hardship. The Plaintiffs have lost all creditworthiness and given their age and reliance on Social Security income ; it is unlikely they will ever qualify for another loan. 
The failure to adhere to the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) protections has effectively trapped the Plaintiffs in a situation with no viable financial options as they approach retirement. The loan, designed to fail from the outset, has not only stripped them of their financial security but has robbed them of the peace of mind and financial stability they had worked so hard to secure over their lifetimes. 

As retirees with limited income sources, they now face a future devoid of meaningful financial opportunity. They will never be able to recoup the loss of their good credit, and the damage done by this predatory loan is immeasurable. This is why the Plaintiffs are seeking punitive damages not just to hold M & T Bank accountable for its predatory and exploitative practices but to begin to make amends for the future that was stolen from them. The banks actions have destroyed their ability to move forward in life with the financial security they had rightfully earned, and punitive damages would serve as both a financial remedy and a necessary deterrent to prevent M & T Bank from engaging in such harmful practices in the future. 

This case is not merely about compensating for the immediate financial losses suffered by the Plaintiffs ; it is about restoring the dignity and future security that M & T Bank knowingly took away. The Plaintiffs deserve justice for the irreversible harm caused by this predatory loan, and punitive damages will play a crucial role in acknowledging the banks willful misconduct and ensuring that they are made whole. 

A RECAP : This case presents a glaring opportunity to correct a clear injustice. The Plaintiffs, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, were misled and subjected to predatory lending practices that jeopardized their financial security and future. This is not simply a technical violation of the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) ; its an egregious example of financial exploitation. The Plaintiffs ' ability to maintain good credit were put at risk for the sake of M & T Banks profits. It is imperative that this wrongdoing be addressed, and justice be served. 

Taking on this case offers the opportunity to secure justice for the Plaintiffs and challenge M & T Banks predatory practices. This loan was designed to fail from the start, with the bank knowingly setting the Plaintiffs up for default and repossession of the XXXX. The potential for legal recourse is significant, and this case is an urgent call for accountability. 

TILA mandates that lenders assess a borrowers ability to repay loans concerning a primary residence, which includes XXXX  used as a primary residence. This involves verifying income, future income, assets, reserves, calculating debt-to-income ratios, and evaluating the borrowers capacity to manage debt responsibly. M & T Bank and its underwriters failed to conduct this necessary assessment, which would have revealed the loans unaffordability, particularly given the Plaintiffs impending reliance on only Social Security income within XXXX years of the XXXX loan. Plaintiffs have no assets or reserves. 

At the time of the loans consummation in XX/XX/XXXX, the Plaintiffs, both XXXX XXXX XXXX, were preparing for retirement and were about to become solely dependent on their combined Social Security income starting in XXXX or XXXX. Despite this clear financial reality, M & T Banks underwriters failed to assess the Plaintiffs ' ability to repay the loan over the next XXXX  years, which would have exposed the unsustainable nature of such a large debt after their retirement. Prior to the loans consummation, the Plaintiffs were already struggling with a debt-to-income ratio of 125 %, and the banks predatory lending practices only worsened their financial vulnerability. 

M & T Banks underwriters knowingly approved a loan that was unaffordable and set the Plaintiffs up for failure. Their primary concern appeared to be securing the 10 % down payment, without regard for the couples ability to repay the {$85000.00} XXXX loan beginning at their ages of XXXX. This was not an oversight but a deliberate choice to exploit the XXXX for profit, knowing that they would eventually default, and that repossession of the XXXX  was inevitable. 

The loan was designed to fail. The underwriters disregarded basic lending principles and chose to exploit the Plaintiffs ' impending retirement, setting them up for default and eventual repossession of the XXXX. This predatory behavior exposes the banks priorities to secure a down payment and profit from an inevitable default, rather than ensuring the Plaintiffs financial well-being.

The closing process was equally questionable. The finance manager responsible for handling the closing distracted the Plaintiffs with irrelevant conversations, preventing them from fully reviewing and understanding the terms of the documents they were signing. The Plaintiffs were rushed through the paperwork, signing documents without any meaningful opportunity to review or understand what they were agreeing to. XXXX such document stated, You agree NOT to use the property as a dwelling, which directly contradicted the XXXX ' intention of using the RV as their primary home. 

Loan Estimate and Closing Disclosure per TILA To make matters worse, the XXXX were never provided a Loan Estimate XXXX  days after loan approval or before submitting their 10 % down payment. Additionally, they were never given a Closing Disclosure three days prior to consummating the loan, as required by TILA law. This failure allowed the inclusion of an absurd and misleading clause in the final documents You agree NOT to use the Property as a dwelling. 

M & T Banks misclassification of the loan, failure to assess the Plaintiffs ability to repay, and deceptive closing process have caused severe and lasting harm to these retirees. Despite excellent credit and clear intentions to secure a home, the Plaintiffs were granted a loan under unaffordable terms, leaving them in significant financial distress. The failure to follow TILA protections trapped them in a situation where they can not recover, especially as they approach retirement and rely solely on Social Security. 

The loan, designed to fail from the outset, has destroyed their financial stability and peace of mind. With limited income and no ability to repay, the XXXXaintiffs will never be able to rebuild their credit, and their financial future is compromised. M & T Banks actions have robbed them of the financial security they had worked so hard for. 

This case is not only about compensating for immediate harm but also about holding M & T Bank accountable for predatory practices that have permanently affected the Plaintiffs lives. The failure to adhere to basic lending standards, including ignoring their critical financial situation and the Plaintiffs ' debt-to-income ratio, underscores the banks misconduct. 

Plaintiffs seek punitive damages not only to address the immediate harm but to rectify the unjust future M & T Bank has stolen from them. This is a clear case of financial exploitation, and its essential that M & T Bank be held accountable for the irreparable harm caused by this predatory loan. 

Key Issues : 1. Misclassification of Loan : Despite the XXXX being intended as a primary residence, M & T Banks underwriters misclassified the loan as a " vehicle loan, '' thereby bypassing TILAs requirements for primary residence loans and denying the Borrowers essential protections and disclosures. 

2. Failure to Assess Ability to Repay : M & T Banks underwriters failed to properly evaluate the Borrowers ' financial situation, despite their impending reliance solely on Social Security benefits. The loan 's terms were clearly unaffordable, and their debt-to-income ratio far exceeded TILAs acceptable limits. 

3. Fraudulent Conduct : M & T Bank misrepresented the loan contract by including an unauthorized clause that stated, You agree not to use the Property as a dwelling. This misrepresentation misled the Borrowers about the terms and the intended use of the XXXX. 

4. TILA Disclosure Violations : M & T Bank failed to provide the Borrowers with a timely Loan Estimate ( LE ) or Closing Disclosure ( CD ). The LE was provided over a year after loan consummation, and the critical term regarding the XXXX  restriction as a dwelling was never disclosed to the Plaintiffs until more than a year after closing.

5. Predatory Lending Practices : M & T Bank knowingly approved an unaffordable loan, aware that the Borrowers would likely default. This conduct exemplifies deliberate financial exploitation, with the loan structured to fail. 

Financial Impact : As a result of these actions, the Borrowers ' credit has suffered, and they are at risk of defaulting once they rely solely on Social Security income in XXXX and XXXX. The threat of repossession looms, leaving them homeless and with no viable financial options. 
The loan, designed to fail from the outset, has destroyed their financial stability and peace of mind. With limited income and no ability to repay, the Plaintiffs will never be able to rebuild their credit, and their financial future is compromised. M & T Banks actions have robbed them of the financial security they had worked so hard for. 

Requested Legal Remedies : The Borrowers are seeking the cancellation of the loan, along with the return of all funds paid, including their 10 % down payment. Additionally, they seek legal recourse for the emotional distress, financial harm, and breach of fiduciary duty caused by these predatory actions. 
This case represents a clear violation of consumer protection laws, and we believe it offers the potential for significant legal redress for the Borrowers. 
We would greatly appreciate your consideration of this matter. Please let us know if you would be open to discussing it further and taking on the case. 

Sincerely, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  residents XXXX

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