Consumer complaint received 2026-06-11 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — VA mortgage
Issue: Closing on a mortgage — Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue with the loan closing
Company: eMortgage Funding LLC
State: NC

Complaint narrative:
. Plaintiff previously filed XXXX Case No. XXXX, which was dismissed at the screening stage. Plaintiff does not refile th foreclosure order. This Complaint is limited to independent claims against the lender, assignee/servicer, and their agents for statutory violations, damages, accounting, correction of records, and prospective relief. XXXX. XXXX XXXX foreclosure matter XXXX is referenced only to show notice, continued enforcement activity, role confusion, sale cancellation, and the harm caused by Defendants treatment of a disputed loan as valid and enforceable. 19. On XX/XX/XXXX, Plaintiff filed notice in the foreclosure proceeding that federal claims concerning the loan and foreclosure had been filed before the XX/XX/XXXX foreclosure hearing. 20. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX moved to withdraw as counsel for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The motion stated the proceeding was contested. The Clerk allowed withdrawal on XX/XX/XXXX, two days before the foreclosure hearing. 21. On XX/XX/XXXX, an order stated that XXXX XXXX XXXX appeared on behalf of the lender/noteholder XXXX XXXX at a XX/XX/XXXX hearing and that no other parties appeared. Plaintiff disputes that she was afforded a meaningful opportunity to be heard and has sought state Rule 60 relief in the proper state forum. 22. On XX/XX/XXXX, the scheduled foreclosure sale was cancelled at the request of the noteholder. Plaintiff alleges no completed sale has occurred and no new sale has been properly noticed, filed, mailed, posted, and published after that cancellation. 23. Plaintiff alleges XXXX XXXX or foreclosure actors nevertheless reported or represented a later sale date, including a XX/XX/XXXX sale date, to the VA or third parties, causing increased harassment and third-party solicitation at Plaintiffs home. 24. Plaintiff has received repeated telephone calls, emails, and in-person visits from persons attempting to purchase or view her home as if it were currently listed for auction or sale. Plaintiff alleges those contacts were caused by Defendants or their agents sale-date reporting, foreclosure data feeds, auction postings, or failure to correct false or misleading sale-status information. V. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. Origination, Changed Terms, and Misrepresented Benefit 25. In XXXX or XX/XX/XXXX, EMortgage solicited Plaintiff for a VA cash-out refinance that was represented as beneficial, debt-reducing, and financially helpful. 26. The refinance closed on or about XX/XX/XXXX for approximately {$340000.00}. 27. The final loan was materially worse than Plaintiffs prior loan. The refinance increased the loan balance, increased the interest rate, increased the monthly payment, increased the total scheduled payments over the life of the loan, eliminated listed remaining equity, and provided only limited direct cash to Plaintiff. 8. Documents reflect an existing loan balance of approximately {$270000.00}, an existing payment of approximately {$1600.00}, and a 5.750 % interest rate, compared with a new loan amount of approximately {$340000.00}, a new payment of approximately {$2300.00}, and a 7.250 % interest rate. 29. The refinance comparison shows an increase in total scheduled payments of approximately {$250000.00} and a reduction in listed remaining home equity from approximately {$63000.00} to {$0.00}. 30. Despite these harmful changes, the final refinance summary showed only approximately {$4900.00} directly disbursed to Plaintiff. 31. EMortgage later admitted in regulatory correspondence that the loan amount, interest rate, closing costs, and cash to borrower changed from the Loan Estimate, and that the loan was subject to TILA/Regulation Z rescission. B. TILA/Regulation Z Rescission 32. Plaintiff signed the Notice of Right to Cancel on XX/XX/XXXX. 33. The transaction was secured by Plaintiffs principal dwelling. 34. Plaintiff alleges she timely exercised the right to cancel/rescind the transaction. 35. EMortgage and XXXX XXXX did not release the deed of trust, return amounts paid in connection with the transaction, provide a rescission accounting, obtain a court-supervised tender determination, or otherwise comply with the statutory rescission process. 36. Instead, Defendants treated the loan as valid, transferred or accepted it, serviced it, reported it, denied loss mitigation, and used it as a basis for foreclosure enforcement. C. XXXX/ High-Cost Mortgage and Counseling Defects 37. The loan appears to trigger XXXX/high-cost mortgage status under the points-and-fees test. 38. The Closing Disclosure shows borrower-paid origination charges of approximately {$20000.00}, including approximately {$18000.00} in points or percentage-based charges, plus additional lender fees. 39. Five percent of the {$340000.00} loan amount is {$17000.00} ; therefore, the disclosed borrower-paid origination charges appear to exceed the 5 % high-cost mortgage threshold unless Defendants can prove lawful exclusions. 40. No XXXX/high-cost mortgage worksheet, points-and-fees calculation, APR/APOR analysis, counseling certificate, or high-cost mortgage compliance documentation has been produced to Plaintiff. 41. Plaintiff alleges the loan was extended without required high-cost mortgage counseling certification if the XXXXXXXX threshold was met. D. Ability-to-Repay / Qualified Mortgage Defects 42. Plaintiff alleges Defendants failed to make, preserve, or produce a reasonable and good-faith Ability-to-Repay / Qualified Mortgage determination before consummation. 43. XXXX XXXX admitted or indicated that it could not locate ATR/QM documentation in the loan file.4. The missing ATR/QM documentation is material because the final loan increased Plaintiffs payment, rate, balance, lifetime scheduled payments, and financial burden while providing limited direct cash and eliminating listed equity. 45. XXXX XXXX later used affordability and ability-to-pay issues against Plaintiff in loss mitigation, further evidencing that ability to repay was a known issue from origination. E. XXXX XXXX Pre-Closing Role and Undisclosed Third-Party Involvement 46. XXXX XXXX has denied involvement in origination and has claimed it became noteholder after closing, but documents suggest pre-closing involvement. 47. A XXXX XXXX-branded suspense letter existed before closing while EMortgage was listed as lender. 48. XXXX XXXX also represented that loan documents were prepared by XXXX XXXX on behalf of EMortgage, while other positions suggest EMortgage prepared documents for XXXX XXXX. 49. Plaintiff alleges XXXX XXXX participated in document preparation, underwriting conditions, loan file review, transfer conditions, or control before the stated post-closing transfer date, without being properly disclosed to Plaintiff as a pre-closing third-party participant. F. Closing Process, Notary, and Payoff Harm 50. Plaintiff alleges accurate final closing documents were not provided in a manner that allowed meaningful review before closing. 51. Plaintiff was denied her request to choose the closing attorney, closing location, and closing time. 52. Plaintiff alleges the closing was handled by a notary without proper supervision by a North Carolina licensed attorney practicing in North Carolina for a real-estate closing involving North Carolina property . 53. Debts were paid through third-party checks that did not fully satisfy payoff amounts and caused account problems, account closures, creditor disputes, and financial harm. 54. Plaintiff alleges the lender-controlled payoff method interfered with her finances and breached duties associated with the represented purpose of the refinance. G. Servicing, QWR/Notice of Error, and Credit Reporting 55 . On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX received Plaintiffs Qualified Written Request / Notice of Error concerning loan number XXXX. 56. By letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX acknowledged receipt of the QWR/Notice of Error and stated the matter was under review and investigation pursuant to Regulation X. 57. XXXX XXXX also acknowledged that if the Notice of Error relates to disputed payment periods, XXXX must suppress adverse data furnishing to consumer reporting agencies for 60 days from receipt of the Notice of Error. 58. Despite active disputes, XXXX XXXX has furnished, verified, or maintained adverse credit reporting regarding disputed delinquency, payment periods, default, foreclosure status, and account status.. Plaintiff alleges XXXX XXXX failed to conduct a reasonable investigation under RESPA/Regulation X and FCRA/Regulation V, failed to correct disputed information, and failed to stop misleading adverse reporting during the required investigation and suppression period. H. Sale-Date Reporting, Harassment, and Third-Party Contacts 60. After the XX/XX/XXXX cancellation of sale, Plaintiff did not receive a new Notice of Sale and has not seen a properly filed new sale date in the foreclosure file. 61. Plaintiff alleges XXXX XXXX or its agents nevertheless reported or represented a XX/XX/XXXX foreclosure sale date to the VA or third parties. 62. Plaintiff has received up to approximately twenty calls per day from persons attempting to purchase her home and has had people appear at or near her home in a private gated community to look at the property. 63. Plaintiff alleges this harassment and property intrusion was caused by Defendants inaccurate sale-date reporting, foreclosure data, auction listing, or failure to correct false sale information. I. Document Integrity and Note Issues 64. XXXX XXXX stated that the note was not notarized and did not need to be notarized. 65. Plaintiff alleges a notarized version of the note or note-related document later appeared in foreclosure materials. 66. Plaintiff does not allege a promissory note must be notarized to be valid. Plaintiff alleges document-integrity concerns and requests discovery into who notarized the document, when it was notarized, whether Plaintiff personally appeared before the notary, and whether the foreclosure file contained a materially altered or substituted version of the loan documents.

Company response to consumer: Untimely response