Consumer complaint received 2017-09-11 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — 
Company: CORELOGIC INC
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I was the owner of 2 units in XXXX XXXX, California and went through the condo conversion process to convert the bldg. from a XXXX into 2 condos. When I completed the lengthy and expensive conversion in XX/XX/XXXX, I attempted to sell one of the units and the bank ( XXXX at that time, now XXXX ) forbid me from selling one of the units saying their investor refused. The XXXX loan originated in XX/XX/XXXX, midstream through the conversion and the bank was fully aware of the conversion through my admission and by public records ( XXXX stated in XX/XX/XXXX that they did not know of the conversion and claims I began the conversion and filed CC & R 's after the XXXX loan was made, which is simply not true ). 
Fast forward to XX/XX/XXXX when the market crashed. XXXX went bankrupt, XXXX took over, my loan payment nearly doubled, and because I was prevented from selling one of the units to lower my debt to nearly half, I was unable to make the " new '' loan payment. These new payments went into effect nearly 2.5 yrs. before they were scheduled to and as a result, I began to go into foreclosure. Years of litigation ensued, and I finally agreed with XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX-XX/XX/XXXXto deed them one of the units in lieu of foreclosure. The loss on that transaction was substantial, coupled with over 6 years where the unit sat empty, causing hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost rental income. The litigation was extensive. In XX/XX/XXXX, I signed a new loan with XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX ( on modified terms ) that I would owe {$620000.00} on the first loan at 3.5 % for a period of 40 years ( i.e., {$2400.00} per month ). The repayment began on XX/XX/XXXX. I had a second loan with XXXX in the amount of {$130000.00}. Total debt was {$750000.00}. 
In XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted the CFPB regarding several issues I was having with XXXX XXXX ( formerly XXXX ) with this new loan ( as well as the HELOC with XXXX ). The new loan has had several problems with the escrow account and the loan. As a result of the problems with XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX, I requested to ( and ultimately did ) end the impound account due to several accounting errors. The loan documents state that at any time, either party can cancel the impound account. The loan payment for the {$620000.00} loan is {$2400.00} per month. 
To give an overview of a few of the problems with XXXX XXXX, within about one month of the new loan, XXXX conducted an annual review of the escrow account and said I had a shortfall. The initial problem appears to stem from the fact that XXXX never made the original escrow payment as indicated in the closing statement, so the escrow account was immediately negative. 
The next misstep occurred when XXXX sent me an {$11.00} check and revised closing documents that were dated XX/XX/XXXX saying something about an error in the flood certification. I never agreed to flood insurance in the original loan documents so it was unclear what they were revising. 
Immediately following the flood insurance error, XXXX sent another revised loan statement claiming I needed to pay an additional $ 1000+ a month to address an escrow shortage. Investigation revealed that XXXX was now billing me for the property taxes for the unit ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) in XXXX XXXX that I had deeded to XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX. I retained the second unit ( XXXX XXXX ) which is XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX was deeded lot and block number : XXXX. XXXX claims to have corrected this issue by issuing another refund. On XX/XX/XXXX, when I went to make the old payment of {$3000.00} instead of {$4100.00} on XX/XX/XXXX, the teller said to me, Oh, so you are just making a payment today? You are not paying anything toward the principle or interest? As a result of these problems with XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX, I requested to end the impound account due to several accounting errors. 
XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX are now contacting me on XX/XX/XXXX claiming that I owe them money for property taxes they paid on lot and block : XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX. The Unit located at XXXX has been owned by XXXX XXXX since XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX and Core Logic state the money should have been paid on my lot and block number : XXXX. XXXX and Core Logic is claiming that {$3400.00} was paid on the other Unit ( XX/XX/XXXX ) and that amount is now owed to them, that somehow this payment of property taxes on lot XXXX benefited me. 
The CFPB has been involved with the property ( XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX ) and XXXX XXXX on Complaint number XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXX. The attached documents showing the original loan documents showing what the bank agreed to fund beginning XX/XX/XXXX, as well as XXXX attempt on XX/XX/XXXX to collect taxes on a property owned by them since XX/XX/XXXX. The company has a pattern of poor business practices and the problem needs to be corrected. XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX are the two companies involved in this recent issue. A second CFPB complaint filed against XXXX XXXX in XXXX is complaint : XXXX. The complaint against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is related to the initial complaints against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief