Consumer complaint received 2019-11-15 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Closing on a mortgage — 
Company: ClosingMark Financial Services, LLC
State: CO

Complaint narrative:
We have already tried to contact the company with the following complaint 3 times using different avenues. In the most recent email sent, we requested that they contact us to at least acknowledge that the complaint was received. We have gotten no responses since the complaint was first filed three weeks ago. The text of the submitted complaint follows. 

To whom it may concern : We are writing to submit a formal complaint regarding the poor service that we received while working with XXXX XXXX XXXX/Closing Mark Home Loan. We are strongly considering submitting a formal complaint to the  Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and any similar state agency in Colorado and/or California, as we feel that there were instances that pushed the boundaries of acceptable and, possible, legal behavior. 
The entire loan process with this company, from start to finish, has been unprofessional at best to downright deceptive and, potentially, life-impacting. We have been forgotten, lied to, and put into stressful situations that, frankly, should never happen. We have been through multiple account officers and underwriters, been asked to submit documents multiple times, been told falsehoods, and, upon completing closing on XX/XX/XXXX, we received letters that appeared to be informing us that we had been denied for the loan that we closed on. 
The following is a summarized narrative of the timeline from starting the prequalification process to closing on the mortgage. This timeline has been compiled based upon timestamped communication ( both written and digital ). 
We started this journey in XX/XX/2019, upon starting the prequalification process. We submitted the requested information to XXXX XXXX XXXX ( herein after XXXX )  and promptly received a response on XX/XX/XXXX. At that time, we received an initial workbook which showed us the expected loan amount, down payment amount, fees, etc. The individual that we started with was extremely responsive and helpful, answering any of our questions promptly and clearly. 
We toured the community and decided that it was a good fit for us. At that time, we were given the option of looking for outside financing options or pursuing financing with the related company, XXXX ; the related financing came with builder incentives. At no point were we pressured by the sales team at XXXX to go with XXXX. However, as we had already started the prequalification process ( and the subsequent hard hit to our credit scores ) and because of the very good service we had received to date, as well as the healthy builder incentive, we signed the sales contract with the commitment to pursue the mortgage through XXXX. The contract was completed on XX/XX/XXXX, following a discussion with both the sales team at XXXX and the XXXX representative. 
On XX/XX/XXXX ( a Saturday ), we reached out to the XXXX representative to see what the next financing steps would be, as the sales team indicated that the mortgage company would reach out to us. The next day ( a Sunday ), the XXXX representative informed us that he would be running an automated approval and would reach out if he needed additional documents. We took this to mean that our application was complete enough to start the clock and was in process. At this point, we had not been told that additional documents would be required to complete our application, just that there may be a need for additional documentation. 
We did not hear back from the XXXX representative after that point. On XX/XX/XXXX ( a Saturday, nearly two full calendar weeks from last contact ), we reached out to the XXXX representative again. By XX/XX/XXXX ( Wednesday ), we emailed the XXXX sales team for assistance ; they referred us to the president of the mortgage company. We were informed, by the president of the company, that the XXXX representative that had been handling our application had abruptly left XXXX and that our application had not been passed onto another case manager/loan officer. By that time, our required loan approval date had passed ; this date was stipulated in our sales contract. 
We were connected with a new XXXX representative ( herein after referred to as new XXXX representative or loan officer ) who informed us via email that our application was incomplete and that nothing had been processed in the intervening time. Again, we had been under the impression that our application was complete and in process since mid-XXXX. At that point, again, nearly two weeks had passed, and we did not receive a formal notification of incompleteness. 
During the subsequent document collection period, the loan officer asked we could put down another half percent, which would increase our down payment to 3.5 % of the sales price. We agreed that we could afford the extra 0.5 %, but asked if she was considering an FHA loan. She informed us that she was looking at that option. At that point, we stated that we did not want to pursue an FHA loan, but said that we would consider it if we could see all the financing options that she could offer us. We asked that we be provided with a worksheet showing all the offerings that we could qualify for, so that we could pick the option that best matched our needs. We never received a product comparison worksheet despite the written request. Additionally, we did not receive an updated worksheet showing our expected costs at this time. 

Subsequently, as we were loading additional documents into the XXXX portal when we noticed that we had a loan details section available. We opened that section of the webpage and saw that our loan had been started under an FHA program, despite the fact that we had told our loan officer that we did not want an FHA loan and despite the fact that we had not been given a worksheet showing our product options. We communicated to the loan officer that we emphatically did not want the FHA loan, as the fees associated with the loan would negate any benefit from going with XXXX, based upon the builder incentives. Additionally, both of us have strong credit scores and did not need the credit support to qualify for a mortgage. Instead of giving us a workbook showing us our different financing options, the loan officer changed the product type for the mortgage to a XXXX  XXXX  conventional loan. Again, at no point were we allowed to select our product type ( or informed that XXXX only offered a limited product selection ). We were not given the information needed to make an informed decision. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, we received the first set of loan disclosure documents ; we were not talked through our product choices at this point. We promptly signed the loan disclosures, after saving a copy and reviewing in detail. At this point, we received our first estimate ( aside from the prequalification estimate provided in XXXX ) that showed our expected loan costs, rate, fees, etc. This information was not provided ahead of time and we were informed that we had only 72 hours to sign the documents. We were not given options on product type or any other factor. Additionally, we were not offered any assistance in understanding the documents that we were given or any help working through the legalese. 

It should be noted that we were informed, only by the disclosures, that the PMI would not be cancellable due to rising home values. At the outset, the original XXXX  representative implied ( though, notably, did not explicitly state ), that the home could be reappraised after a period of time and the new value used for the LTV calculation. Under the subsequent disclosures, it was apparent that the PMI could only cancellable via loan payments compared to the original appraised value at closing. While not a major issue, it is notable because it is contradictory to information that we had at outset. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, we received an automated email informing us that we had updated disclosures to sign. The email did not indicate what the changes were, nor did the loan officer notify us at any point that changes had been made. Upon reviewing the disclosures, the changes were the addition of a TILA form ( that we did not receive in our original packet ), an additional {$200.00} fee, and the removal of our {$5000.00} earnest money deposit. As a result, our updated disclosures indicated that we would owe an additional {$5000.00} in cash for our down payment at closing.

We reached out the same date to the loan officer and received a response that equated to her not knowing what was going on. Upon further research, she informed us that she wasnt sure why the earnest money deposit was removed and that she would make sure that we would get updated documents showing the amount. We were told to be confident that the credit would be given at closing. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, we were introduced via email to a loan processor ( herein after loan processor or underwriter ; this introduction came directly from the loan processor and the loan officer was not involved in the introduction. At this time, the loan processor stated that our loan was conditionally approved, dependent upon two document lists. One list was to be provided as soon as possible, while the other was due within 60 days of closing. At this point, we were at about a month and a half out from the point at which we had been originally led to believe that our application was complete.

Many of the documents requested at this time had already been submitted as part of our original loan package or the subsequent package initiated by the loan officer. We had to resend many of the documents and enter them onto an online portal. 

It should be noted, at this point, we sent images ( pictures ) of several of the documents to the loan processor. This was not an issue and she did not request that the documents be scanned or otherwise in a different format. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, we began reaching out to the loan officer to get information for the mortgagee clause, as our insurance agent was requesting it before he could start the formal application and estimate process on his side. The next day, we were informed that a new loan processor ( different from the current underwriter ) would provide that information to our agent. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, we reached out to the loan processor, as we had not heard from her since we submitted our documents ( largely completed in XXXX ). On XX/XX/XXXX, she responded and said that she received all our documents that that everything looks good at this time. She said that she would reach out closer to closing, but did not state why. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, we received an email from the loan officer informing us that XXXX had acquired Closing Mark Home Loans ( herein after CMHL ) and that our mortgage application would be acquired by CMHL. The email stated that our mortgage would be redisclosed and that we would need to sign updated disclosures. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, we received a notification from CMHL stating that the XXXX mortgage application had been migrated to the new platform. We received new loan disclosures at that time. 

The XX/XX/XXXX letter informed us that we would be receiving an updated conditional approval. This is a month after we had originally been conditionally approved. The loan officer did not reach out to explain that a new application had been started on the new platform, hence the approval process was started over entirely. The document informed us that our application was started XX/XX/XXXX, though it was not explicitly made clear that it was a completely new loan application and not just a formality due to the new system. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, we received the formal scheduling request for closing, via Closing Mark Settlement Services. While this was scheduled, we had not yet received a formal approval, final disclosures, or closing instructions. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, we received 3 options for the interest rate lock. The option sheet was sent only with instructions to look at Options 1, 2 and 3, with no explanation for the calculations, differences, or any other factors. Upon reviewing them, the only option that we could follow the math on was Option 3. Given the previous difficulties in obtaining information from the loan officer, we decided to lock on the option that we could follow. Based on our math, the other two options did not appear to conform to standard amortization at the listed interest rates, but, again, we could not follow the math. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, we received our updated disclosures for the interest rate lock. This disclosure, like previous disclosures, did not have any charge for points. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, we received an email from the president of the mortgage company. This email informed us that XXXX was legally required to close out the application and that we would soon be receiving a notice from XXXX  that would show that XXXX  no longer had an active application in the system for us ; the email stated that the communication that we would receive could include language stated that the application was denied, but that it would not impact our ongoing application with CMHL. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, we received a Changed Circumstance letter. This letter added a {$770.00} fee, amounting to 0.25 % of the loan amount, as points, as part of the origination costs. This fee was not explained to us. The letter stated that it was due to the credit report/credit score and credit report/mortgage insurance. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, we received an email titled XXXX/XXXX XXXX XXXX Conditional Loan Approval. This email included a list of new documents to provide, including new disclosures, new bank statements, new paystubs, insurance quote, and college transcripts. It should be noted that we were told, in the body of the email, that the documents needed to be provided asap. At this point, we were not offered a secure way to send our documents. We could email them back to the loan processor directly or fax them. 

At this point, we were also informed that we could not send pictures of documents to the loan processor, despite having been able to send images previously. While navigable, this put a fair amount of undue pressure on us, as we had to find a way to scan our documents to be able to send them via email. We also found that we had a significant amount of pressure from the loan processor to provide the documents quickly On XX/XX/XXXX, we received disclosures to sign. On XX/XX/XXXX, we emailed the loan officer and asked if the disclosures were the final set and if the listed cash to close amount was the amount we needed to get our cashiers check for closing. We were informed that the disclosures given were the final set. 

The XX/XX/XXXX documents additionally included a waiver for the receipt of the appraisal within the timing required by ECOA section 1002.14 ( a ) ( 1 ). 

On XX/XX/XXXX, we received the appraisal on the property. This property appraisal had been completed on XX/XX/XXXX. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, we emailed our loan officer to ask about what name to put on the cashiers check for closing, as we never received closing instructions. While this email was sent on a Saturday, we had previously received prompt responses from all parties, even on weekends. We had no reason to believe that we would not hear back prior to closing on XX/XX/XXXX. 

We received no further communication from the mortgage company, nor any of its agents, prior to closing. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, we closed on the mortgage. Our appointment to close was at XXXX. We arrived at approximately XXXX, as our previous meeting for the day had ended more quickly than expected. We were prepared to wait until XXXX. Our closing agent came out at around XXXX and told us that our application had not yet been approved by CMHL and that she was, as a result, still, waiting for documents. She also informed us that she had not yet received the final closing disclosure and that, as a result, our cash to close amount had not yet ben finalized. 

At about XXXX, our closing agent informed us that she had received several closing disclosures for our application that day. She then stated that the final closing amount had been set by CMHL, as she had confirmed the most recent disclosure with the wire processor. We were short on our original check ( which was stated as the final amount, as previously noted ) and were forced to go back to our bank. We had to come up with about {$800.00} on the spot to be able to close. At this point, our closing documents were not yet available. 

We signed our documents at our XXXX PM on XX/XX/XXXX. We waited at the settlement office until nearly XXXX XXXX for the final wire to be sent by the processing agent. We were given no explanation for the significant wait. 

After closing, we returned to our then-current residence for the night. We checked our mail. We found two letters which were mailed to us ( one for each of us ), which stated that our loan had been denied. The letters were dated XX/XX/XXXX, but had not been mailed and post-marked until XX/XX/XXXX. These letters were related to the hand-off from XXXX to CMHL. As previously noted, we had been told in XXXX that we may receive a formal denial letter, due to the new application being opened. As given by the discrepancy between the letter and postmark dates, it appears that these letters were held back for some reason. The reason was not given to us at any point in the application process. 

The following day, XX/XX/XXXX, we received an email from our loan officer apologizing for the delay in response to our question regarding our closing and a statement that she hoped our closing went okay. No comments were included regarding the fact that our loan had not been approved for the day of closing. We did not respond. 

In summary, the entire process was fraught and full of miscommunications and a lack of communication. Our grievances are summarized below : Our application was forgotten by the mortgage company, as the original representative left and nobody picked up his caseload. 
Our application was implied to have been complete and in process with the original representative. 
o At no point did we receive a formal notice of incompleteness, despite ongoing requests for information over several months. 
o We were not given a complete checklist of all the information that we would need to provide throughout the life of the application and approval process. 
We were not given product comparisons between available options, despite multiple requests for such information. 
We were originally put into a product type that we explicitly stated that we did not want. 
o While we do not know the details of the XXXX/CMHL compensation structure, we have been informed by multiple individuals from outside financial institutions that FHA loans often generate a larger incentive fee for the loan officer. We believe that this could be the reason for the initial assignment.

We were given contradictory information throughout the process. This includes receiving documents which did not include {$5000.00} in cash we had already paid ; while this was resolved, this issue was never explained to us.

We were not given explanations for multiple adjustments and changes to fees and amounts through out the process.

o Our loan officer did not make any attempt to explain any of the forms, procedures, or documents that we received. We were forced to make our best attempt at understanding the files that we had to sign. 
o When setting our rate lock, the loan officer did not explain the difference between the given options. As previously stated, two of the options did not mathematically calculate to the payments given.

o We are better informed than most consumers, as one of us works for a commercial bank. Even then, we had trouble with some of the documents and it is baffling that we received no guidance from the loan officer.

We were denied a secure way to send documents to the loan processor.

o Additionally, a format which had previously been acceptable for files, was no longer acceptable. We were not given an explanation for this discrepancy. 
We were not given closing instructions. When we reached out for instructions ( admitted at the 11th hour ), we did not receive a response. This is out of line with prior behavior, as we had previously received prompt communication even outside of normal business hours. 
o The response from the lender was given a business day after our closing. It should be noted that this response did not include any of the requested information. 
Our loan was not approved prior to the day of our closing and, in actuality, we had to wait for the application to be approved and for documents to be prepared and sent to our closing agent. 
o While we are not sure of the industry standard for loan approvals and preparation of loan documents for mortgages, it does not seem unreasonable to expect that the process should be completed well prior to the day of closing. 
o This caused a significant amount of personal stress, as our closing agent could not give us an expected timeline. We were left unaware of if we were going to be able to close on our scheduled date or if we would need to be rescheduled. 
This is significant, as we had already made arrangements for our moving process, including cancelling our lease with our prior residence, booking and prepaying for moving equipment, and taking time off from work ( including taking time for the day of closing itself ). 
We received a formal loan denial after our closing, with the denial letters being sent on XX/XX/XXXX. Given that XX/XX/XXXX was a holiday, it seems likely that the letters were sent so as to not be received until after closing. 
o The letters were dated XX/XX/XXXX, which means that the letters were held back for well over a month. While we are not sure on the required disclosure timelines for consumer loans, we have been informed that it is often 10 days from the decision date. This delivery falls well outside of that window.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation