Consumer complaint received 2025-10-22 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Closing on a mortgage — Delays with the closing process
Company: Rocket Mortgage, LLC
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
I am filing a complaint against Rocket Mortgage for failure to clearly disclose loan conditions and misleading communications regarding the rental of my departing residence. 

I was informed in writing and by text that I had 60 days to vacate my current residence after closing, which I relied upon in good faith. At no time was I advised that the departing residence rental requirement was a separate, immediate condition tied to underwriting or that it would prevent closing. The distinction between occupancy timing and rental condition was only made clear after my closing was delayed, despite my compliance with all prior instructions. 

After appraisal, inspection, and full compliance, Rocket refuses to close my loan at the last minute, claiming the property must be rented prior to closig. I immediately secured a tenant, lease, and verified {$3200.00} in rent/deposit funds, but the unerwriter delayed the file again over a non-material {$4.00} varaiance ( a pre-existing account balance ). I ultimately obtaied the {$4.00} from my tenant and uploaded the account transaction details to the portal. 

This communication has caused unnecesarry stress, sped up the timeline and moving coordination, potential financial loss, ad risk to my purchase. Rocket 's Executive Relations department has been contacted, but the matter remains unsolved. 

Timeline of Key Events XX/XX/XXXX I receive confirmation again that I have 60 days to move ( documented by text ). No distinction is made between occupancy timing and rental-income verification timing. 

XX/XX/XXXX Appraisal completed ; value {$420000.00}, contract {$390000.00} ( instant equity ). All standard loan docs provided. 

XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX I uploaded me lease agreement into the portal on XXXX different days clearly showing my lease agreement would take effect on XX/XX/XXXX. Still no distinction is made between occupancy timing and rental-income verification timing. 

XX/XX/XXXX XXXX contacts me by text to request my lease agreement again. I explained it was a XXXX year lease agreement and sent it to him by email this time. He confirms that it " sounds good '' giving no indication there is any sort of problem. 

Friday, XX/XX/XXXX XXXX am XXXX XXXX me a text message that someone named XXXX talked to me on phone about needing an active lease. He also informed me that because of the issue, we would not close on XX/XX/XXXX as scheduled. I never spoke to any XXXX so that was a lie. Then Im told for the first time that I must have a signed tenant lease, first months rent, and security deposit collected prior to closing. This is presented as a new gating condition, distinct from the 60-day occupancy rule, which had never been explained before. I escalated to a Director, gave a thorough explanation, and provided a timeline. In fact it seems like the action that followed soon after was retaliation using malicious compliance. 

XX/XX/XXXX I immediately comply : secure tenant, submit executed lease, and provide bank statement showing {$3000.00} first months rent + {$250.00} security deposit = {$3200.00} received and cleared ( ending balance {$3200.00} as of XX/XX/XXXX ). 

XX/XX/XXXX Underwriting asserts a {$4.00} shortage. I clarify in writing that the {$4.00} was a pre-existing balance, not a deficiency ; the total tenant funds are fully present and cleared ( statement attached ). No substantive response to clear the file is provided.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation