Consumer complaint received 2025-03-11 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Private mortgage insurance (PMI)
Company: U.S. BANCORP
State: OH

Complaint narrative:
My conventional mortgage originated XX/XX/XXXX. I called my mortgage servicer, U.S. Bank, XX/XX/XXXX, to inquire about removing PMI. 

On this call I was informed there were two options to remove PMI, as I had not yet made two years of payments, from the loan origination date : 1 ) A principal curtailment, where based on the original Loan To Value, I would owe a lump sum ( ~ $ XXXX ). I could then order a Brokers Price Opinion ( BPO ) for {$190.00}. I was not interested in this option. 
XXXX ) After the loan had been originated for 2 years, XX/XX/XXXX, call back to U.S. Bank after this date to initiate the PMI removal process, using the BPO for {$190.00}. I could pay this amount over the phone and would not need to fill out any forms. After the BPO came back, if the market value of the house came back at {$330000.00}, the $ 129 monthly PMI would be removed. This is the option I agreed to pursue. 

I called back to U.S. Bank, XX/XX/XXXX to initiate the second option, as detailed above. I was advised : 1 ) Now that I am 2 years past my loan origination date, per XXXX investor guidelines, the Loan To Current Value ( LTCV ) amount of 75 % needed to be used, and improvements would not be considered. I was told I am now ineligible for the option I wanted to purse, from my call in XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ). I was told this was disclosed to me in a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX. While I did receive the letter dated XX/XX/XXXX in the mail, I do not have a copy of this page of the letter. The representative provided me with a copy of the letter electronically during the call.

2 ) I escalated this to a different representative, who provided the same investor guidelines. My wife cited that this is an Unfair and Deceptive UDAAP practice, as I was not told during the XX/XX/XXXX call that waiting for a full two years after the loan origination date would initiate a different LTV requirement, and would not be able to consider improvements. The representative then transferred my call to the escalations department.

3 ) While speaking to the escalation representative, XX/XX/XXXX, I was once again told that I could use the Loan To Original Value ( LTOV ) amount through XXXX. This meant I would pay for the {$190.00} BPO and would not need to do a Principal Curtailment. Instead, as long as I met two conditions, my PMI would be removed. Condition 1 ) Improvements were equal to ~ {$39000.00} and Condition 2 ) the value of the house from the BPO was not lower than the original Appraisal amount. I told the representative I wanted to pursue this option, as this is what I was told by the original representative on XX/XX/XXXX. However, the escalated representative then said she could not do this option after all. ( This is about 30 minutes prior to my 2.5 hour phone call to U.S. Bank ending XX/XX/XXXX ). I was told that as I was now two years into my loan, the 75 % Loan To Current Value applied, and I needed my home value to in around {$350000.00}. My wife once again brought up UDAAP concerns.

I was not advised in my original call, XX/XX/XXXX, that by waiting for two years after my loan originated and calling back, as directed by the representative after XX/XX/XXXX, that the LTV calculation would be different, and improvements would no longer be considered. This is causing direct financial impact, as also agreed by the second representative I spoke to XX/XX/XXXX.

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