Consumer complaint received 2026-05-18 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Private mortgage insurance (PMI)
Company: Valon Technologies, Inc.
State: AR

Complaint narrative:
NEW CFPB COMPLAINT Re : Valon Mortgage , Inc. PMI Cancellation / Prior Complaints XXXX and XXXX This complaint supplements and continues two prior CFPB complaints against Valon Mortgage, Inc. ( XXXX and XXXX ), both of which were closed without resolution. I am filing this new complaint because Valon 's formal responses contain a material misrepresentation of the documentary record, which I can now demonstrate with specific evidence. Background In XX/XX/XXXX, I obtained a XXXX XXXXbacked conventional mortgage on my primary residence. PMI was required at origination. In late XXXX, a partial release of a portion of the collateral was completed. The partial release was executed by XXXX as nominee for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, notarized, and recorded with the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX ( Document XXXX ). The recorded release contains no curtailment requirement of any amount. In connection with the partial release, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ordered a state-certified appraisal through XXXX, completed XX/XX/XXXX, which established the current market value of the retained property at {$730000.00} against an outstanding loan balance of approximately {$600000.00}. I paid {$630.00} for this appraisal. On XX/XX/XXXX, I submitted a formal PMI cancellation request to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Loan servicing transferred to Valon Mortgage effective XX/XX/XXXX. I Was Never Informed of the XXXX Requirement At no point in this process was I informed that the appraisal being ordered would be unusable for PMI removal. I had no knowledge of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX system, no knowledge that XXXX was a third-party vendor operating outside that system, and no basis on which to distinguish between an appraisal acceptable for a partial release and one acceptable for MI termination. From my perspective, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ordered a professional appraisal, I paid {$630.00} for it, and I was told it had been submitted for PMI review. The existence of a separate, purpose-specific ordering requirement was never disclosed not at origination, not when the appraisal was ordered, and not when the PMI removal request was submitted. The first time I learned that the appraisal was procedurally insufficient for PMI removal was 18 days after submitting the request, when a different department of the same bank issued a denial. Under 12 U.S.C. 4902 ( a ) ( 4 ), evidence requirements must be established in advance and communicated to the borrower promptly upon receipt of a cancellation request. That did not happen here. I complied with every requirement that was actually communicated, and am now being asked to pay again for a failure of disclosure that was entirely the servicer 's. Valon 's Misrepresentation of the Record In their formal CFPB response dated XX/XX/XXXX, and in a subsequent email dated XX/XX/XXXX, Valon cited XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 's XX/XX/XXXX email as confirmation that XXXX XXXX will not accept the existing appraisal for PMI removal. Valon presented this as the definitive and final resolution of the matter by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. This is factually incomplete. The XX/XX/XXXX email was not XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 's final position. It was the beginning of an ongoing process that Valon has never acknowledged. The complete documentary record provided as exhibits shows the following : XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 's PMI department confirmed the appraisal was ordered through XXXX and that XXXX XXXX would not accept it for PMI removal as ordered. XXXX XXXX XXXX provided a fee authorization form for a new XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Rather than simply requiring the borrower to pay for a new valuation, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 's PMI representative emailed XXXX XXXX directly to request an exception asking XXXX XXXX to accept the existing appraisal for PMI removal. His written communication to the borrower stated : " I have emailed XXXX requesting that they accept your appraisal for PMI removal. I am now awaiting XXXX 's reply. '' XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX reported that XXXX XXXX had requested confirmation that the partial release was completed before reviewing the valuation. XXXX XXXX XXXX was actively working to provide that confirmation. XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 's representative confirmed he was still actively researching the matter. Servicing transferred to Valon on XX/XX/XXXX less than four weeks after XXXX XXXX XXXX 's last communication confirming the exception request was still open. Valon has now responded to this complaint twice without once acknowledging the existence of this exception request, despite the fact that the documentary evidence was included in prior complaint exhibits. In their XX/XX/XXXX follow-up email, Valon explicitly cited the XX/XX/XXXX correspondence while attaching it as their supporting exhibit. They did not attach or reference any of the XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX correspondence. This selective presentation of the record is not an oversight it is a deliberate omission of evidence that directly contradicts their position. The {$150000.00} Curtailment Valon 's formal CFPB response states that XXXX XXXX confirmed the {$150000.00} curtailment requirement. Despite two rounds of complaints and responses, Valon has never : - Identified the specific XXXX XXXX Servicing Guide section requiring this curtailment - Explained how the {$150000.00} figure was calculated - Explained why this requirement does not appear in the recorded partial release document - Produced the specific XXXX XXXX communication they claim confirms this requirement The recorded partial release executed by XXXX, notarized, and recorded with the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was completed and recorded without any curtailment being collected. If XXXX XXXX required a {$150000.00} curtailment as a condition of the partial release, that condition should appear in the release documentation and should have been collected at closing. It was not. Valon is asserting a {$150000.00} financial obligation against the borrower based on an undocumented claim that XXXX XXXX confirmed it while refusing to produce the documentation that would either support or refute that claim. Valon 's Refusal to Engage Valon 's most recent communication states : " Valon has fully responded to this matter and will not address any further questions or requests related to this issue. '' This statement was made in response to specific, documented questions that Valon has never answered : 1. Was XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 's XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX exception request documented in the transfer file Valon received? 2. If so, what action did Valon take regarding it? 3. If it was not in the transfer file, has Valon contacted XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to determine its status and outcome? 4. What is the specific Fannie Mae guideline or written communication confirming the {$150000.00} curtailment requirement? Declining to answer documented questions is not the same as resolving a complaint. Exhibits : Exhibit A : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX email thread XXXX XXXX XXXX initial PMI denial and confirmation appraisal ordered through XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX email thread XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX exception request and ongoing investigation at time of servicing transfer Exhibit C : XXXX XXXX recorded Partial Release, Document XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX Exhibit D : Valon Mortgage email thread XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Exhibit E : Valon formal CFPB response dated XX/XX/XXXX Exhibit F : Valon follow-up email dated XX/XX/XXXX, citing XX/XX/XXXX correspondence only Exhibit G : XX/XX/XXXX appraisal XXXX XXXX completed by state-certified appraiser, ordered by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX through XXXX Exhibit H : Servicing transfer notice dated XX/XX/XXXX, confirming XX/XX/XXXX transfer date

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation