Consumer complaint received 2026-04-22 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage — Application denials
Company: LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
I originally began my mortgage with XXXX XXXX. After closing, my loan servicing was transferred to Lakeview Loan Servicing as part of a servicing transfer, and I did not independently select Lakeview as my lender or servicer for refinance purposes. Following the transfer, Lakeview repeatedly contacted me over an extended period via phone, mail, and email encouraging me to refinance my mortgage. These solicitations occurred over several months, and I ultimately chose to respond when the offered opportunity aligned with a sub-6 % interest rate environment. Based on this outreach and my existing servicing relationship, I proceeded with a refinance application through Lakeview. During the application process, I was later required to address a title issue involving a life estate vesting. This issue was not clearly disclosed as a material underwriting risk prior to or at the outset of the application process. It only became apparent later when I was prompted through the online loan portal to upload documentation related to the title requirement. At that point, I initiated communication with the assigned loan officer to understand the nature of the issue, its potential impact on loan approval, and the steps required to resolve it. Following identification of the issue, I made repeated attempts to obtain clarification from both the loan officer and loan processor regarding whether the condition would result in loan denial, what specific actions were required to cure the issue, and the timeframe available to complete the correction. I also communicated that I was actively working with an attorney to resolve the deed issue and required timely guidance in order to complete the requirement within any applicable deadline. However, I did not receive timely or clear communication explaining the urgency of the issue, the specific timeline for resolution, or that failure to resolve the matter within a defined period would result in loan denial. As a result, I did not have an accurate understanding of the timeframe required to prevent denial. Due to delays in communication from the assigned loan team, I contacted the companys general customer service line to seek clarification. I was then transferred to another loan officer, who indicated that I should have received advance notice that my loan was at risk of denial. I did not receive any such warning or escalation communication prior to the denial decision. The loan was ultimately denied due to the life estate issue. Following the denial, I was informed that I would need to submit a new application in order to proceed, rather than being able to continue under the existing file or resolve the issue within the same application. As a result of this process, I experienced delays that impacted my ability to secure a previously available interest rate environment during a period of changing market conditions. I was also required to restart the application process under potentially less favorable terms and incurred additional time, administrative burden, and uncertainty due to gaps in communication during the origination process.

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