Consumer complaint received 2026-04-14 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan
Company: Rocket Mortgage, LLC
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
b"I am a borrower on a conventional mortgage loan. The loan originated on XXXX XXXX XXXX through XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I have maintained a perfect payment history since origination and have zero missed or late payments.\nI. Background and Chain of Custody\nAt origination I was not informed that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX held an interest in my loan. A search of the XXXX XXXX loan lookup tool conducted on XXXX XXXX XXXX confirms that XXXX XXXX involvement dates to the closing date of XXXX XXXX XXXX meaning my loan was sold to XXXX XXXX at or immediately upon origination without my knowledge. I was never provided written notice of this ownership interest as required by the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1641(g), which requires the new owner of a mortgage loan to notify the borrower in writing within 30 days of transfer.\nThe recorded chain of title at the XXXX XXXX Michigan Register of Deeds is as follows:\nOriginal Mortgage XXXX XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX recorded XXXX XXXX XXXX Assignment of Mortgage XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX Bank, recorded XXXX XXXX XXXX nearly three years after origination, despite XXXX XXXX having been the active servicer well before that date. Assignment of Mortgage XXXX XXXX Bank to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, recorded XXXX XXXX XXXX No further assignments are recorded. There is no recorded assignment from XXXX XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX does not appear in the XXXX County recorded chain of title at any point despite being confirmed as the current owner in writing by Rocket Mortgage, LLC on two separate occasions.\nThis recorded chain reflects a three year gap between the actual Wells Fargo transfer and its recording, and a complete absence of any recorded assignment reflecting the current servicer or claimed owner. Under Michigan MCL 565.25 and MCL 600.3204, the current servicer and claimed owner lack a complete recorded chain of title to this property.\nA search of the MERS registry conducted on XXXX XXXX XXXX for XXXX XXXX reveals the MIN status as INACTIVE, the servicer of record as XXXX XXXX Bank, XXXX and the investor as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has not been the servicer of this loan for several years. Neither the transfer from XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX nor the transfer from XXXX XXXX to Rocket Mortgage appears to have been registered in MERS. The loan is currently active and being serviced by Rocket Mortgage, LLC yet carries an inactive MERS status with a servicer record that is multiple transfers out of date.\nThe result is a three-system discrepancy across every authoritative tracking system for this loan. The XXXX XXXX system shows Rocket Mortgage as current servicer. The MERS registry shows XXXX XXXX The XXXX County Register of Deeds shows XXXX XXXX. None of these systems agree with each other, and only the XXXX XXXX system reflects current reality. This constitutes a systemic and documented failure to maintain accurate chain of custody records across multiple consecutive ownership and servicing transfers.\nII. Qualified Written Request Non-Response\nOn XXXX XXXX XXXX I submitted a Qualified Written Request (QWR) pursuant to RESPA, 12 U.S.C. 2605 and 12 C.F.R. 1024.35 and 1024.36, to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX via XXXX Certified Mail, tracking number XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX confirmed receipt on XXXX XXXX XXXX The statutory 30 business day response window therefore ran from XXXX XXXX XXXX\nMy QWR requested the following: the identity and contact information of the current note holder; the complete chain of transfers and assignments of the promissory note and mortgage including all endorsements, allonges, and MERS transfers with sworn affidavits from all endorsees; a complete itemized payment history from origination to present; a complete escrow account history; copies of the original promissory note and all allonges; and documentation of any recent escrow adjustments.\nRocket Mortgage, LLC subsequently issued a letter dated XXXX XXXX XXXX acknowledging receipt of the QWR on XXXX XXXX XXXX and representing in writing that a response would be provided no later than XXXX XXXX XXXX. This extended deadline fell within the 45 business day maximum permitted under Regulation X 1024.36(d)(2). No response of any kind was received by XXXX XXXX XXXX, in clear violation of RESPA 2605(e) and Regulation X 1024.36(d).\nIII. Deficient Servicing Transfer Notice\nI was never provided legally sufficient notice of the transfer of servicing from XXXX XXXX to Rocket Mortgage as required by RESPA 2605(b) and (c) and 12 C.F.R. 1024.33(b). Notices I received referenced Rocket Mortgage only in the context of XXXX XXXXr being backed by Rocket Mortgage language that does not satisfy the mandatory disclosure requirements of 2605(b)(2), which require the name and address of the new servicer, the effective date of the transfer, the date the old servicer will stop accepting payments, and the date the new servicer will begin accepting payments, among other required elements. My first confirmed notice that Rocket Mortgage, LLC was my actual servicer of record was their own letter of XXXX XXXX XXXX The deficient transfer notice is what directly caused me to submit my QWR to XXXX XXXX rather than Rocket Mortgage I acted in good faith based on the inadequate information I had been given.\nIV. Notice of Dishonor Second Non-Response\nOn XXXX XXXX XXXX I sent a formal Notice of Dishonor and Demand for Performance to Rocket Mortgage, LLC via XXXX Certified Mail to both their XXXX TX QWR compliance address and their XXXX TX customer service address. The notice cited the statutory violations, documented the missed deadline, and demanded full performance within 10 business days of confirmed receipt.\nRocket Mortgage received the notice on XXXX XXXX XXXX. On XXXX XXXX XXXX they responded with a letter again requesting additional time and stating that a response would be provided no later than XXXX XXXX XXXX. This is the second extension request with no statutory basis. A Notice of Dishonor is not a new QWR and does not reset the statutory clock. The original 45 business day maximum window under RESPA expired on or around XXXX XXXX XXXX That violation is locked in and cannot be undone by requesting further time.\nV. Pre-Foreclosure Language Directed at a Current Borrower\nThe XXXX XXXX XXXX letter from Rocket Mortgage included the following statement: mandatory pre-foreclosure notices may continue. I have made every mortgage payment on time since origination in XXXX XXXX and have zero missed or late payments across nine years of ownership. The inclusion of pre-foreclosure language in a letter responding to a lawful legal notice submitted by a current, performing borrower with a perfect payment history constitutes intimidation and is inconsistent with RESPA's consumer protection purpose. Under RESPA 2605(e)(3), a servicer is prohibited from providing adverse information to any consumer reporting agency or treating any payment as overdue during the pendency of a QWR. Invoking pre-foreclosure language while a QWR remains unanswered and unresolved compounds this violation.\nVI. Pattern and Practice\nThe conduct described above does not reflect isolated clerical error. It reflects a pattern across multiple institutions and multiple years: a three year delay in recording the first mortgage assignment; two consecutive servicer transfers never registered in MERS; no recorded assignment to the current servicer or claimed owner at XXXX County; a deficient servicing transfer notice that left me uninformed of who my actual servicer was; a QWR non-response past both the statutory and self-committed deadline; a second extension demand with no statutory basis; and pre-foreclosure intimidation of a borrower with a perfect nine year payment history. This pattern of conduct is precisely what RESPA 2605(f)'s additional damages provision for pattern and practice of noncompliance was designed to address."

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation