Consumer complaint received 2025-08-10 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Other type of mortgage
Issue: Closing on a mortgage — Changes in loan terms during or after closing
Company: FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF PENNSYLVANIA
State: VA

Complaint narrative:
XXXX  actions outlined below constitute a bait-and-switch. We applied for a construction loan with XXXX around XX/XX/year>, and XXXX XXXX gave us every assurance including preapproval letter on XX/XX/year>, lock on our APR on XX/XX/year>, multiple assurance emails, and formal predisclosure steps and insurance requests that the one-close construction loan was on track to close on XX/XX/year> without issue. On XX/XX/year>, the bank indicated there was an issue with the RSUs in my XXXX account, because the XXXX XXXX dollars in RSUs  was not " readily available. '' I had provided the bank my XXXX statement on XX/XX/XXXX, which clearly showed the RSUs  were not " readily available. '' I further explained to the bank that my RSUs vest every quarter, which means I will have about {$50000.00} in cash available every quarter beginning in XXXX. The bank without warning, required us to come up with {$350000.00} in cash within 7 days, despite no change in our financial condition, or we could not close on the house on XX/XX/XXXX. 

We were completely distraught and we struggled to figure out next steps. We had already made an offer on a home, put down earnest money, and provided the builders {$60000.00} in cash based on XXXX XXXX assurance that we were on track for the one-close construction loan. We didn't want to lose the home or the money we had already invested, so we were forced to find a bank we could trust and close on the home using a conventional loan in approximately 14 days. Our closing costs for this first transaction was {$200000.00}. We now have to apply for a construction loan and go through a second closing. We believe XXXX should reimburse us for our closing costs since we were forced to go through two closings after XXXX  came up with an arbitrary requirement that we come up with {$350000.00} in case before we can close. 

Incident Summary Construction Loan Bait and Switch Timeline & Pre-Approval : On XX/XX/year>, we received a pre-approval letter from First National Bank XXXX for a one-close construction loan in XXXX, XXXX We reside in XXXX, VA ( ZIP XXXX ). 

Financial Disclosures : On XX/XX/XXXX, we provided all requested documentation, including XXXX statements showing ~ {$1.00} XXXX in unvested RSUs, and explicitly explained during our initial call that the RSUs were unvested and vested quarterly. 

No Financial Change : From the date of pre-approval to the date of the banks reversal, there was no change in our income, employment, or assets. 

Banks XXXX Communications : On XX/XX/XXXX, the bank emailed predisclosure documents for us to sign, along with educational videos on loan steps, reinforcing that our loan was progressing toward closing. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, we were instructed to obtain builders risk insurance for the construction loan another step that confirmed the loan was moving forward. 

XXXX Issue First Raised : On XX/XX/XXXX, the bank raised its first question regarding the XXXX shown in the XXXX account, despite having this same documentation since XXXX. 

Sudden Reversal : On XX/XX/XXXX, just six days before our XX/XX/XXXX scheduled closing, the bank informed us that they would not approve the loan unless we produced an additional {$350000.00} in liquid funds immediately. 

Consequences : We were forced to abandon the one-close construction loan and switch to a conventional loan, incurring : {$200000.00} at closing, Seller penalty of {$1000.00}, {$900.00} second appraisal, Increased insurance premiums, A $ XXXX second mortgage until construction financing is obtained, Additional closing costs for the second transaction. 

Fairness Concern : The banks actions constitute a bait-and-switch. They gave us every assurance including formal predisclosure steps and insurance requests that the one-close loan was on track, only to change material terms at the last possible moment, despite no change in our financial condition.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation