Consumer complaint received 2026-04-08 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — FHA mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure
Company: MIDFIRST BANK
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
Manufactured Default & Breach of Repayment Agreement 1. Sabotage of a Performing Repayment Plan XXXX Mortgage is utilizing unauthorized drafts and " suspense account '' traps to force a 7.2 % interest rate modification by unilaterally voiding a valid repayment plan designed to protect my 3.125 % fixed-rate agreement. In XX/XX/XXXX, I entered a specific repayment plan and successfully performed by making a payment of {$9100.00} ( attached below ). On XX/XX/XXXX, I instructed a XXXX agent to make the next plan payment. The agent drafted an unauthorized amount of {$8000.00} without confirming the suma violation of Regulation E. Despite this unauthorized " short '' draft, the agents internal log ( attached below ) explicitly states : " i adv that pmt will cover XX/XX/XXXX rpmt plan. '' XXXX then used this unauthorized draft as a pretext to cancel the repayment plan. They later admitted in a XX/XX/XXXX, letter ( attached below ) that they were holding {$1100.00} in an undisclosed suspense account. Crucially, I received zero billing statements disclosing these funds, which is a clear TILA violation. 2. The Mathematical Proof of Breach The math proves the default was manufactured by the bank, not the borrower : {$8000.00} ( Unauthorized Draft ) + {$1100.00} ( Hidden Suspense ) = {$9100.00} This total matches my successful XXXX payment to the penny. XXXX used their own failure to apply these combined funds to cancel the plan and strip my rate protection. XXXX. Deceptive " Setup to Fail '' Solicitation & Loss Mitigation Churn Since sabotaging the XXXX plan, XXXX has engaged in predatory churn. For seven months, I have been pressured to accept a 7.2 % modification, which I have consistently contested. XXXX recently attempted to force a XXXX repayment plan for about $ XXXX nearly double my established plandesigned solely to force a technical default. Most recently, on XX/XX/XXXX, an agent called soliciting a " XXXX '' trial payment, falsely claiming I had agreed to it. After I demanded the agent check the loan notes, he apologized and admitted he was mistaken. Soliciting a XXXX payment in XXXX is a deceptive practice ; per XXXX 's own terms, a late trial payment results in an automatic failure. This is a " void on arrival '' agreement intended to collect funds without providing a path to modification. XXXX. " Ghost Documents '' and SPOC Violations On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a " Repayment Plan '' package dated XXXX XXXX document I had never seen in two years of communication ( attached below ). This document incorrectly identifies my Fixed-Rate loan as an " Adjustable Rate Mortgage '' ( ARM ). It appears XXXX is using outdated, incorrect, and previously undisclosed records to justify a manufactured default. Furthermore, XXXX has falsely claimed they are " not required '' to assign a Single Point of Contact ( SPOC ), a direct violation of 12 C.F.R. 1024.40.

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