Consumer complaint received 2021-04-04 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage — 
Company: Rocket Mortgage, LLC
State: NC

Complaint narrative:
COMPLAINT RE : ROCKET MORTGAGE/QUICKEN LOANS, XX/XX/2021 SUMMARY We are extremely dissatisfied with the way Rocket Mortgage/Quicken Loans ( RMQL ) processed our jumbo loan application. Time and again they came up with new requirements that they should have disclosed before taking our application. Each time we complied with their new requirement they would come up a few days later with another new one. The net result was that Rocket Mortgage required that our down payment grow from 20 % in multiple steps to 30 % of the purchase price. They surprised us with the last 5 % increase on the day before closing. Only because we had cash set aside for improvements were we able to close.

In follow-up calls and emails, RMQLs customer service personnel refused to make any correction in our case or to prevent future abuse of new applicants. While they attribute their poor behavior to errors they made, squeezing us for better terms may have made our loan more salable. A zero cost second mortgage would make us whole, but more importantly, RQML should be investigated for their jumbo loan practices and be required to make complete disclosure of all loan conditions and the methods of calculation at application time.

We would not recommend Rocket Mortgage or Quicken Loans as a source for any loan. 

FAILURE TO DISCLOSE AND MOVING THE GOAL POSTS XXXX XXXX took the original data on XX/XX/2021 and on XX/XX/XXXX I confirmed my and my wifes intention to seek the loan he offered. He told me we were qualified for the 20 % down, 2.75 %, 30 year, fixed loan. He passed the application on to the processing team. He did not disclose any of the rules Rocket Mortgage/Quicken Loans uses to qualify income, assets, and liabilities for our jumbo loan. I learned later he misinterpreted the annual pension figure I gave him as a monthly number. This started a chain of looking for more and more income to support the loan. 

XXXX XXXX took over as the next person in the processing chain. During this time we were responding to requests for documents ( over 80 at last count ) : assets to close and cover contingencies ; pension income, social security income, annuity income, and income from IRAs ; tax returns and permission to get tax return transcripts from the IRS. During this period he revealed that Underwriting would not consider income from RMDs. No one wanted to consider income from work or investments. No one explained why this was so except that these were Underwritings rules and they were different for jumbo loans than for conforming loans. The net result was that Rocket Mortgage/Quicken Loans on XX/XX/XXXX reduced the amount they would consider lending us from {$720000.00} to {$680000.00}. While I can appreciate that RMQL has to live with the requirements put upon it by the people to whom it sells these loans, I am dissatisfied with the way RMQL reveals in serial fashion each new requirement. 

XXXX XXXX took over processing of the loan at this point, though she and XXXX worked together on several steps. By XX/XX/XXXX she explained we had to pay off two credit cards and show statements with zero balances. Given that we use these cards all the time and that she was asking for something to happen off the usual billing schedule I electronically transferred money to both accounts so they showed credit balances. But, this was not enough. On XX/XX/XXXX she finally disclosed that underwriting wanted us to close both those credit cards. In a letter I explained that this was a ridiculous requirement in that we paid these transactional cards off every month anyway, and if we had to close them, we would simply open up new cards. I asked at this point if I could speak directly with Underwriting so we could explore all solutions to this issue at once instead of a piecemeal back and forth approach given that we were only eight days away from closing. XXXX intervened and suggested reducing the loan amount might gain Underwritings approval. I suggested a {$5000.00} reduction. He came back with a {$13000.00} reduction to {$660000.00}. I told everyone that while I was disappointed with the way I was treated, we would accept the change. All of this should have been disclosed in detail up front and this should have been the last change. 

Two days before closing XXXX made a special request of us. Could we go to the IRS website and get her copies of our last three years tax returns transcripts? This was in spite of us previously having twice given Rocket Mortgage permission to obtain those transcripts directly from the IRS and our submission of our paper copies of those returns. We complied with this third request. 

XXXX XXXX was sent in the day before closing to extract another {$50000.00} for the down payment. I was out of town and did not get the message until noon. He provided no explanation as to how this number was arrived at nor the data upon which it was based. He did NOT promise that there would not be another change in the 18 hours remaining before closing. Had we known this earlier we would have been able to sell other assets and not scramble to come up with cash on a days notice. At this point if it were a refinance rather than a purchase, I would have walked away from the deal. Moving the goal posts this close to closing borders on extortion. 

XXXX XXXX was assigned the closing process. Her one-day involvement with me was limited to making sure RMQL had our titling and mailing address correct. She did an acceptable job. My closing attorney may have a different opinion, but he might have been served by a different person.

On Monday after closing I called the customer service department of RMQL and was assigned to XXXX XXXX, Customer Service Representative. She admitted my wife and I had been treated badly. She was sympathetic but ineffective in obtaining any meaningful redress of my complaint. 

XXXX XXXX, Lead Resolution Advocate, took over with this egregious case. She explained some of the obscure and seemingly arbitrary methods RMQL used to calculate the Debt-to-Income ( DTI ) ratio. She also contradicted XXXX XXXX statement that it was necessary to pay off and close credit cards. Over a couple phone calls and emails she presented a case for three separate miscalculations of our DTI ratio during the processing of our loan. She did not apologize for any of these errors. Lead Resolution Advocate stated she was unable to do anything to more to address our situation.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation