Sign in

First Heritage Mortgage

Sharing is caring! Have something to share about First Heritage Mortgage? Use RevDex to write a review
Reviews First Heritage Mortgage

First Heritage Mortgage Reviews (6)

[redacted] Response: I spoke with [redacted] on February 18, 2015, to get her pre-qualified for a home mortgageDuring this phone call Ms [redacted] told me she was currently working at [redacted] as an Education Specialist for the past six yearsShe informed me she had been living in North Carolina for the past two years and still maintained her job in Maryland because she was able to work from homeI told her that would not be a problem as long as we could verify that informationMs [redacted] never told me her employer would not provide a letter to confirm this until March 24, Believe me, there is no way I would have ever ignored this information; I've been in the mortgage business too long to ignore facts that would have a material impact to the outcome of the loan [redacted] ***, [redacted] ***, [redacted] and ** are all held to a new federal standard known as ATR (Ability to Repay)We have to verify all income and its continuanceHad she said this earlier, it would have been a show stopperI never told Ms [redacted] that a signed letter from her would be acceptable to meet this condition on verifying her employment in MarylandOn March 24, 2015, Ms [redacted] came by my office to sign some additional documentation and provide remaining items needed for the loanAt this time she logged on to her employer's website on my computer to try and find a verification of employment to help verify her employment with [redacted] [redacted] We were able to print a verification of employment at that time which showed she was employed at [redacted] s as an Elementary Classroom Teacher at [redacted] Elementary SchoolThis information contradicted the original information provided by Ms [redacted] on February 18, (when I pre-qualified her), that she was an Education SpecialistAfter Ms [redacted] left my office I provided the additional documentation to my underwriter who called [redacted] Elementary School and the school stated they had no one by the name of [redacted] working thereI called Ms [redacted] on March 25, 2015, to ask about the details provided on the verification of employment and at this time she told me no one would be able to verify her job title or ability to work remotely from North CarolinaI understand Ms [redacted] 's frustrations and had we been able to verify the information she provided for the pre-qualification we would have been able to close her loan on timeSince we could not verify the information provided the loan was deniedWe believe that Ms [redacted] misrepresented the facts about her employment which made the loan impossible to approveGiven that Ms [redacted] appears to have misrepresented her employment information, we see no justification in her request to be refunded any of the money she is requestingMisrepresentation is considered fraudHad we been able to properly verify her employment, as any lender would have had to do, her loan would have been approved and would have closed on time

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the offer and/or response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear belowI did not misrepresent myself in this matterWhen I spoke with *** *** on 2/18/I told her that I was a teacher and an education specialist and that I was able to work from home sometimes; not all of the timeI also told her that my employer would not provide a letter stating that, however I could provide a letter and I had several documents to prove that I was a resident of North Carolina for years and an employee with *** *** *** Public Schools for yearsI provided standard residency documentation to her as well as standard pay stubs proving my employment and income ("Ability to Pay")Additionally, on 2/24/15, I provided her with the *** *** County verification department's phone number, email address, and website so that she could verify my employment and income, which they would have gladly provided, since that is the department's responsibility and the standard for verifying employee's income and work statusShe called them on the phone while I was there and they stated to her that they could provide the verification in writing, however it would take a few daysAccording to Mr***, in my company's verification department, no one at First Heritage Mortgage made the request through my employer's acceptable method of work verification, which is the standard method of work verification.
*** *** and First Heritage Mortgage's failed to obtain my work verification, which was available to them through standard methods. Instead I had additional requirements placed on me that are not placed on other applicants applying for a mortgage loan, which caused me to lose the opportunity to close on a loan for which I was well qualifiedTherefore, I feel I was a victim of lending discrimination, according to the Fair Housing Act, and The U.SDepartment of HUD.
All I would like is for my appraisal fee, inspection fees, and my due diligence fee refunded to me, since I was misinformed regarding my mortgage loan and unjustly denied the opportunity for homeownershipRegards,
*** ***

+1

[redacted] Response: I spoke with [redacted] on February 18, 2015, to get her pre-qualified for a home mortgage. During this phone call Ms. [redacted] told me she was currently working at [redacted] as an Education Specialist for the past six years. She informed...

me she had been living in North Carolina for the past two years and still maintained her job in Maryland because she was able to work from home. I told her that would not be a problem as long as we could verify that information. Ms. [redacted] never told me her employer would not provide a letter to confirm this until March 24, 2015. Believe me, there is no way I would have ever ignored this information; I've been in the mortgage business too long to ignore facts that would have a material impact to the outcome of the loan. [redacted], [redacted], [redacted] and ** are all held to a new federal standard known as ATR (Ability to Repay). We have to verify all income and its continuance. Had she said this earlier, it would have been a show stopper. I never told Ms. [redacted] that a signed letter from her would be acceptable to meet this condition on verifying her employment in Maryland. On March 24, 2015, Ms. [redacted] came by my office to sign some additional documentation and provide remaining items needed for the loan. At this time she logged on to her employer's website on my computer to try and find a verification of employment to help verify her employment with [redacted] 
[redacted] We were able to print a verification of employment at that time which showed she was employed at [redacted]s as an Elementary Classroom Teacher at [redacted] Elementary School. This information contradicted the original information provided by Ms. [redacted] on February 18, 2015 (when I pre-qualified her), that she was an Education Specialist. After Ms. [redacted] left my office I provided the additional documentation to my underwriter who called [redacted] Elementary School and the school stated they had no one by the name of [redacted] working there. I called Ms. [redacted] on March 25, 2015, to ask about the details provided on the verification of employment and at this time she told me no one would be able to verify her job title or ability to work remotely from North Carolina. I understand Ms. [redacted]'s frustrations and had we been able to verify the information she provided for the pre-qualification we would have been able to close her loan on time. Since we could not verify the information provided the loan was denied. We believe that Ms. [redacted] misrepresented the facts about her employment which made the loan impossible to approve. Given that Ms. [redacted] appears to have misrepresented her employment information, we see no justification in her request to be refunded any of the money she is requesting. Misrepresentation is considered fraud. Had we been able to properly verify her employment, as any lender would have had to do, her loan would have been approved and would have closed on time.

[redacted] Response: I spoke with [redacted] on February 18, 2015, to get her pre-qualified for a home mortgage. During this phone call Ms. [redacted] told me she was currently working...

at [redacted] as an Education Specialist for the past six years. She informed me she had been living in North Carolina for the past two years and still maintained her job in Maryland because she was able to work from home. I told her that would not be a problem as long as we could verify that information. Ms. [redacted] never told me her employer would not provide a letter to confirm this until March 24, 2015. Believe me, there is no way I would have ever ignored this information; I've been in the mortgage business too long to ignore facts that would have a material impact to the outcome of the loan. [redacted] and ** are all held to a new federal standard known as ATR (Ability to Repay). We have to verify all income and its continuance. Had she said this earlier, it would have been a show stopper. I never told Ms. [redacted] that a signed letter from her would be acceptable to meet this condition on verifying her employment in Maryland. On March 24, 2015, Ms. [redacted] came by my office to sign some additional documentation and provide remaining items needed for the loan. At this time she logged on to her employer's website on my computer to try and find a verification of employment to help verify her employment with [redacted] 
[redacted] We were able to print a verification of employment at that time which showed she was employed at [redacted]s as an Elementary Classroom Teacher at [redacted] Elementary School. This information contradicted the original information provided by Ms. [redacted] on February 18, 2015 (when I pre-qualified her), that she was an Education Specialist. After Ms. [redacted] left my office I provided the additional documentation to my underwriter who called [redacted] Elementary School and the school stated they had no one by the name of [redacted] working there. I called Ms. [redacted] on March 25, 2015, to ask about the details provided on the verification of employment and at this time she told me no one would be able to verify her job title or ability to work remotely from North Carolina. I understand Ms. [redacted]'s frustrations and had we been able to verify the information she provided for the pre-qualification we would have been able to close her loan on time. Since we could not verify the information provided the loan was denied. We believe that Ms. [redacted] misrepresented the facts about her employment which made the loan impossible to approve. Given that Ms. [redacted] appears to have misrepresented her employment information, we see no justification in her request to be refunded any of the money she is requesting. Misrepresentation is considered fraud. Had we been able to properly verify her employment, as any lender would have had to do, her loan would have been approved and would have closed on time.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the offer and/or response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
I did not misrepresent myself in this matter. When I spoke with [redacted] on 2/18/15 I told her that I was a teacher and an education specialist and that I was able to work from home sometimes; not all of the time. I also told her that my employer would not provide a letter stating that, however I could provide a letter and I had several documents to prove that I was a resident of North Carolina for 2 years and an employee with [redacted] Public Schools for 6 years. I provided standard residency documentation to her as well as standard pay stubs proving my employment and income ("Ability to Pay"). Additionally, on 2/24/15, I provided her with the [redacted] County verification department's phone number, email address, and website so that she could verify my employment and income, which they would have gladly provided, since that is the department's responsibility and the standard for verifying employee's income and work status. She called them on the phone while I was there and they stated to her that they could provide the verification in writing, however it would take a few days. According to Mr. [redacted], in my company's verification department, no one at First Heritage Mortgage made the request through my employer's acceptable method of work verification, which is the standard method of work verification. [redacted] and First Heritage Mortgage's failed to obtain my work verification, which was available to them through standard methods. Instead I had additional requirements placed on me that are not placed on other applicants applying for a mortgage loan, which caused me to lose the opportunity to close on a loan for which I was well qualified. Therefore, I feel I was a victim of lending discrimination, according to the Fair Housing Act, and The U.S. Department of HUD. All I would like is for my appraisal fee, inspection fees, and my due diligence fee refunded to me, since I was misinformed regarding my mortgage loan and unjustly denied the opportunity for homeownership.Regards,
[redacted]

Review: I contacted [redacted] to inquire about a mortgage loan with First Hertitage Mortgage LLC on approximately 2/20/15. I told her that I worked in Maryland and lived in North Carolina, and worked from home. I told her that I could provide a letter stating this, however my employer would not be able to provide a letter stating that I worked from home. I asked Whitney would that circumstance prevent me from qualifying for a mortgage with them and she told me "no it would not be a problem", as long as I signed a letter to that effect. She recommended that I get a pre qualification first and then apply for the actual loan, which I did. After the pre qualification approval, I signed a contract to buy a house in Durham, NC and agreed to pay a $500 due diligence fee to the owner, which I paid on approximately 2/22/15. I also paid $850 for inspections. During the loan process Whitney continued to tell me that everything was going well as I provided her with all the information and documentation that she requested. She later told me the loan was approved and we had a closing date set for 3/27/15 and that she was going to charge my debit card $400.00 for an appraisal of the house before closing. Then on approximately 3/25/15, 2 days before the closing date she asked me to come into the office to sign more papers to prepare for the closing on 3/27/15. While there I signed papers and letters stating my circumstances and Whitney asked if I would sign on my bank account and employee account using her computer so she can verify some information. After signing onto my bank and employee accounts, Whitney slid the keyboard and monitor towards her and without asking me she began to navigate my accounts and print documents. She said we were ready to close in 2 days and called me the next day and said they needed a letter form my employer stating that I work form home. I told her as I mentioned in the beginning, I could not provide that letter. She then stated that my loan is denied.Desired Settlement: I would like a refund of all money I spent in the process of buying a home since [redacted] misinformed me about my loan approval and caused me to lose money because I was not approved. I would like a refund for $500.00 (due diligence money on the first house contract), $850.00 (inspections on the first house contract), and $400 (appraisal fee on first house contract). I would also like a refund for $500 (due diligence fee for the second house contract) since Whitney stated I could change my choice in houses without losing my loan approval and that as long as the appraisal for the second house was sufficient, they would only need me to sign the HUD paperwork again. Based on Whitney's misinformation, I agreed and paid $500 in due diligence fees for the second house contract as well.

If I was informed correctly during this process, by [redacted] and First Heritage Motgage LLC, I would not have lost all the money that I lost in my pursuit of the houses I wanted to purchase.

Business

Response:

[redacted] Response: I spoke with [redacted] on February 18, 2015, to get her pre-qualified for a home mortgage. During this phone call Ms. [redacted] told me she was currently working at [redacted] as an Education Specialist for the past six years. She informed me she had been living in North Carolina for the past two years and still maintained her job in Maryland because she was able to work from home. I told her that would not be a problem as long as we could verify that information. Ms. [redacted] never told me her employer would not provide a letter to confirm this until March 24, 2015. Believe me, there is no way I would have ever ignored this information; I've been in the mortgage business too long to ignore facts that would have a material impact to the outcome of the loan. [redacted] and ** are all held to a new federal standard known as ATR (Ability to Repay). We have to verify all income and its continuance. Had she said this earlier, it would have been a show stopper. I never told Ms. [redacted] that a signed letter from her would be acceptable to meet this condition on verifying her employment in Maryland. On March 24, 2015, Ms. [redacted] came by my office to sign some additional documentation and provide remaining items needed for the loan. At this time she logged on to her employer's website on my computer to try and find a verification of employment to help verify her employment with [redacted] We were able to print a verification of employment at that time which showed she was employed at [redacted]s as an Elementary Classroom Teacher at [redacted] Elementary School. This information contradicted the original information provided by Ms. [redacted] on February 18, 2015 (when I pre-qualified her), that she was an Education Specialist. After Ms. [redacted] left my office I provided the additional documentation to my underwriter who called [redacted] Elementary School and the school stated they had no one by the name of [redacted] working there. I called Ms. [redacted] on March 25, 2015, to ask about the details provided on the verification of employment and at this time she told me no one would be able to verify her job title or ability to work remotely from North Carolina. I understand Ms. [redacted]'s frustrations and had we been able to verify the information she provided for the pre-qualification we would have been able to close her loan on time. Since we could not verify the information provided the loan was denied. We believe that Ms. [redacted] misrepresented the facts about her employment which made the loan impossible to approve. Given that Ms. [redacted] appears to have misrepresented her employment information, we see no justification in her request to be refunded any of the money she is requesting. Misrepresentation is considered fraud. Had we been able to properly verify her employment, as any lender would have had to do, her loan would have been approved and would have closed on time.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the offer and/or response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

I did not misrepresent myself in this matter. When I spoke with [redacted] on 2/18/15 I told her that I was a teacher and an education specialist and that I was able to work from home sometimes; not all of the time. I also told her that my employer would not provide a letter stating that, however I could provide a letter and I had several documents to prove that I was a resident of North Carolina for 2 years and an employee with [redacted] Public Schools for 6 years. I provided standard residency documentation to her as well as standard pay stubs proving my employment and income ("Ability to Pay"). Additionally, on 2/24/15, I provided her with the [redacted] County verification department's phone number, email address, and website so that she could verify my employment and income, which they would have gladly provided, since that is the department's responsibility and the standard for verifying employee's income and work status. She called them on the phone while I was there and they stated to her that they could provide the verification in writing, however it would take a few days. According to Mr. [redacted], in my company's verification department, no one at First Heritage Mortgage made the request through my employer's acceptable method of work verification, which is the standard method of work verification.

Check fields!

Write a review of First Heritage Mortgage Llc

Satisfaction rating
 
 
 
 
 
Upload here Increase visibility and credibility of your review by
adding a photo
Submit your review

First Heritage Mortgage Rating

Overall satisfaction rating

Description: Mortgage Bankers

Address: 675 Peter Jefferson Pkwy, Suite 180, Charlottesvle, Virginia, United States, 22911-8698

Phone:

Show more...

Web:

This website was reported to be associated with First Heritage Mortgage Llc.



Add contact information for First Heritage Mortgage

Add new contacts
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | New | Updated