Consumer complaint received 2026-05-26 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — FHA mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Payment process
Company: MIDFIRST BANK
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
COMPLAINT AGAINST : XXXX Mortgage XXXX MidFirst Bank XXXX NUMBER : XXXX XXXX SUMMARY OF EMERGENCY ESCALATION This is an emergency administrative complaint filed pursuant to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA ), 12 U.S.C. 2605, and 12 CFR 1024.38 ( Data Integrity rules ). This filing is triggered by newly discovered physical evidence of material fraud, data fabrication, a gross case of mistaken identity in state court records, and a flagrant abuse of the federal error-resolution process. To establish the strict chronology : On XX/XX/XXXX, I filed a CFPB complaint and simultaneously dispatched a formal statutory Notice of Error ( NOE ) to the servicer via certified mail. The CFPB closed that specific administrative file on XX/XX/XXXX. Due to postal transit delays, XXXX did not physically receive and sign for my XX/XX/XXXX XXXX until XX/XX/XXXX, establishing an independent, post-regulatory statutory timeline where the bank was legally required to investigate my account discrepancies directly. On Friday, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX 's compliance unit issued an administrative response to that XXXX, denying all servicing discrepancies. Proving a systemic reliance on a corrupted database and an aggressive litigation strategy, the banks foreclosure counsel rushed to the XXXX XXXX Supreme Court literally XXXX business day later, on Monday, XX/XX/XXXX, and filed a formal Foreclosure Summons and Complaint. The bank actively utilized the exact corrupted metrics under dispute to execute a property XXXX days before their federal statutory window to resolve the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX had even expired, giving the consumer XXXX runway to challenge their defective administrative findings before entering litigation. SPECIFIC CORE VIOLATIONS SUBMITTED FOR ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION XXXX. Material Misrepresentation of Contract Baselines to a XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) In an official written submission to the CFPB dated XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX Mortgage explicitly certified to the United States Government that it provided the borrower with a mandatory monthly repayment baseline of {$9100.00} via plan documents allegedly mailed on XX/XX/XXXX. The borrower has recently inspected this physical XXXX packet produced by the bank. A comprehensive audit reveals that XXXX 's statement to the federal government is a complete fabrication. The number {$9100.00} does not exist anywhere in that XXXX document ; the contract explicitly hardcodes the required payment at exactly {$8100.00}. The servicer has spent over a year prosecuting a default track and defending its accounting practices to regulators by utilizing a completely manufactured baseline figure. XXXX. Unlawful Destruction and Deletion of Lawful Contract Timelines XXXX Mortgage is frantically scrambling to merge XXXX completely separate contractual timelines to erase a valid XXXX verbal contract from the administrative record. The {$9100.00} baseline belonged exclusively to a separate contract agreed upon in XX/XX/XXXX via phone to commence with the first installment in XX/XX/XXXX. This agreement sat active in the bank 's database for nearly XXXX months. The borrower performed perfectly under this structure by delivering large blocks of capital in both XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX 's system summarily deleted this active contract structure on XX/XX/XXXX. To cover up this backend computing crash, the servicer falsely told the CFPB that the XXXX contract 's target was running since XX/XX/XXXX, directly contradicting their own printed paperwork to avoid explaining why their mainframes swallowed a performing contract. XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in Court Filings ( Paragraph XXXX ) In Paragraph XXXX of the verified foreclosure complaint filed on XX/XX/XXXX, the bank demands continuous interest running all the way back from XX/XX/XXXX, computed against a full principal balance of {$440000.00}. This judicial demand completely suppresses, conceals, and erases over {$17000.00} in performing capital delivered to the servicer in XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. By demanding uninterrupted interest from XX/XX/XXXX, the bank is actively asking a state court judge to XXXX an inflated judgment, completely failing to credit the cash blocks that the bank explicitly admitted in writing on XX/XX/XXXX, were accepted and posted accurately. XXXX. Gross Mistaken Identity and Defective Title Search ( XXXX XXXX No. XXXX ) Proving a total breakdown of data validation and lack of reasonable human inquiry under Regulation X, the bank 's verified court filings include a XXXX XXXX Search Results Report ( XXXX XXXX No. XXXX ). The bank utilized this search report to drag the New York XXXX Department XXXX XXXX into this foreclosure action as a co-defendant, asserting a {$1000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX acts as a valid XXXX against the property. This statement is entirely false and represents a gross case of mistaken identity. The underlying civil warrant belongs to a completely separate individual named " XXXX XXXX XXXX '' residing at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, NY. The borrower is XXXX XXXX XXXX residing at XXXX XXXX XXXX. The bank 's automated litigation pipeline blindly swore to a Supreme Court XXXX that this unrelated individual 's debt is a valid XXXX against the borrower 's home, failing to verify basic initials, names, or physical addresses before initiating a primary residence XXXX. XXXX. Formal Corporate Admissions of Flawless Payment Delivery & Suspense Withholding In a written response dated XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX 's XXXX unit issued a binding admission, stating : We reviewed the bank statements provided by XXXX XXXX and confirmed that the referenced funds were posted to the account accurately. This permanently defeats any claim that the borrower failed to deliver capital. XXXX admitted the capital was received accurately but chose to seclude the funds inside unapplied corporate suspense accounts to artificially trigger an automated default delete code on the active ledger. XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 's XX/XX/XXXX response also contained an open confession of a manufactured default sequence, stating : Payment at our website is not available while there is an open application for mortgage assistance. The servicer is actively penalizing the borrower for an accumulating delinquency while operating a web matrix designed to intentionally lock him out of the bank 's electronic payment interface, making manual compliance impossible. XXXX. Recorded XXXX XXXX & XXXX XXXX Blindness During an XXXX recorded escalation call. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX separate representatives completely exposed XXXX 's fractured database. XXXX XXXX admitted total ignorance of the history, stated she had to be " careful what verbiage I am using, '' and told me to hunt through my own past mail for answers because what im asking for is way way back. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) used broken calendar math, gave conflicting foreclosure dates, and engaged in mocking auditory groaning and moaning to dismiss my testimony. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) stated a brand new referral to foreclosure date and revealed that over {$13000.00} in performing capital was entirely missing from her primary interface screen before locating it in backend archives, admitting the bank unilaterally dispersed my core blocks of capital across unaligned account categories without my knowledge or consent. Furthermore, on XX/XX/XXXX, representative XXXX explicitly confessed that his terminal screen notes were completely blank for the entire year of XXXX, admitting borrower 's referral to foreclosure/ preforeclosure date does not matter and that it is an entirely " fluid '' and a " nebulous type scenario. '' Notice of Error ( NOE ) mailed via XXXX Mail on XX/XX/XXXX with tracking number 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