First Priority Financial

Review: Company kept a house payment after loan sold. Repeated requests for a statement of accounts were refused as this would have forced First Priority Financial to show the credit balance. we have no idea where our payment is. It's certainly not on our mortgage.First Priority Financial sold loan to a lender that specifically did NOT provide services we wanted, which will end up costing us $80K in interest over the life of the loan. We wanted a loan that allowed for accelerated payments. The new bank specifically states on their website they don't offer such services and Lisa Luperini from First Priority Financial sold the loan without our knowledge anyway. She then suggested we pay automatically bi-monthly and that we add an additional amount and make an additional principal payment each year to get the same effect, except that the bank she sold the loan to doesn't allow those practices. Every additional principal payment we've made has been deposited into an "unapplied" account. This will eliminate our plan to pay this off ten years early and will actually cost us more.Desired Settlement: Refund the $1446.80 payment owed us and refinance at no charge to us or $80K credited to our home loan.

Business

Response:

To: [redacted]

From: [redacted]

[redacted], I'm sorry for what you are going through, but I'm not the [redacted] you are looking for. You are not now, nor never have been, my client.

Please call me at 916-296-5983 to discuss further. Perhaps the sound of my voice on the phone will convince you that I am not the one you are looking for.

Revdex.com Northeast California,

I am not the person she has an issue with. I'm sure a phone call to my corporate office in Fairfield, CA will confirm this.

I'm sure the Revdex.com wants to be sure all matters are cleared up whenever possible, and so do I.

I expect a clean bill of health from the Revdex.com when this is resolved.

Regards,

Business

Response:

FIRST ITEM: Credit Balance Refund: $1446.80 Still owed – we do not agree

FIRST ITEM 1: We do not agree that there is a refund due to Ms. [redacted]. We have done a thorough review of the accounting on the original purchase loan from August 2013 and the refinance which paid off the purchase loan in February 2014. We have also reviewed the payment history provided by the new servicer of the refinance loan. All payments have been properly applied and copies of full statements for each of these have been sent to Ms. [redacted]. [redacted]’s texts 2/20/14 stating that no more payments would be due to FPF until April was accurate. The purchase loan was paid off in February and payments on the new refinance loan did not start until April. However, interest always starts accruing immediately when a new loan is funded. Per diem (daily) interest on the loan being paid off, and per diem interest on the new loan, were handled through escrow. Interest going forward, was paid through the monthly payments starting in April. Monthly interest is always paid in arrears, so the April payment covered the interest for March on the new loan.

FIRST ITEM 2: The March 18th letter from [redacted] incorrectly stated that the April payment was due to them. They retracted this verbally with [redacted], and followed up with written confirmation that the April payment was actually due to FPF. The above explanation of interest addresses how interest works on mortgage loans. Again, the interest collected and payments received are all in order and there has not been any over-collection of funds.

SECOND ITEM: Accelerated Payoff: $80k – we do not agree

SECOND ITEM 1: We do not agree that any promises for specific accelerated programs were promised, and then not available to the borrower. There were numerous texts that discussed options, which are actually available to the borrower. However, in April, after the loan closed, the borrower’s daughter began requesting specific dates for bi-weekly/monthly and/or an accelerated program that were not available through the new servicer. They do offer pre-pay programs, though, and have in fact received and applied additional principal payments from the borrower. As explained to Ms. [redacted] in previous correspondence, it is customary for servicers to place additional payments in an “unapplied account” temporarily until they can determine where the payment belongs. To date, all additional principal payments made by the borrower have been applied to their principal balance, and a statement reflecting this has been provided to Ms. [redacted].

SECOND ITEM 2: Paperwork from the new servicer states that the loan was not originated as bi-weekly, but there is no evidence that they do not allow prepayments of principal. As noted above, they do allow prepayments, have received them and posted them to the principal balance.

SECOND ITEM 3: Emails in April to [redacted] and [redacted] were not ignored. They were addressed with attempts to satisfy the borrower. Again, additional prepayments made to [redacted] have been moved from “unapplied” payments to principal balance. We have no control over how the new servicer accepts incoming calls, but Ms. [redacted] does not need to call each month to have the additional prepayments applied correctly. As long as she clearly marks the additional payments as principal payments, they will be applied correctly.

In closing, we regret that the borrower has had frustration with this transaction. However, we have addressed every concern, and provided documentation to prove that a refund is not due to the borrower and principal payments have been properly applied. Pre-payment options are available, and we did not make any promises for specific programs regarding pre-payment. After a full review of the transaction, we

have determined that the borrower has been well served and we have made every effort to be responsive to her concerns.

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response because: they've denied everything and provided nothing to help this situation. I am horribly financially impacted and in no way satisfied.