The loan application took a longer than expected time to submit to the underwriter because your credit score fell below what was necessary to proceed and required credit updating in an attempt to get the credit rating back to where it was at the time of the pre-approval. You were informed what...
updated documentation was necessary for this in late March, but did not send in those documents until mid-April. Your credit update was ordered immediately upon receipt of updated credit card payment information, but other documents remained outstanding. We spent $430 to try and get your credit back to where it was. In regards to your concerns about not being informed of overtime and debt to income requirements during prequalification, your debt to income was acceptable to move forward when you first came to us. However, updated pay stubs showed that you were no longer receiving overtime payments, and as a result, your debt to income changed. This could not have been known at the time you prequalified. Furthermore, there were weeks that you were not working the assumed 40 hour work weeks, which also made things difficult. Some other points to be made… · The amount of money you were quoted for closing was for closing costs, not your down payment, which remained zero. · The appraisal couldn’t be ordered until certain documents were received, but these documents were not submitted timely and incorrectly without signatures and in unacceptable format such as screenshots, versus what was requested. · The request for the bill of sale of your fiancé’s car was a matter of fraud prevention, and all lenders are required to source large bank deposits like the one that occurred as a result of the sale.
I am sorry that you were dissatisfied with the loan process. We were still actively working your loan file when you withdrew your file with us to close with someone else. Therefore, we cannot refund you the monies for your appraisal.
Unfortunately, the loan did indeed take that long for one particular reason. The client had a blemish on their CAIVRS. CAIVRS stands for Credit Alert Verification Reporting System and it is a system maintained by the federal government that lists persons who have defaulted or had a loan...
foreclosed within the last three years on a debt owed to the Federal government or are currently delinquent on a debt owed to the Federal government. Examples of Federal debts include previous FHA or Veterans Administration home loans, Federal student loans, Small Business Administration loans and similar types of debts. A borrower is not eligible for a new government mortgage if he is presently delinquent on any type of Federal debt, unless the delinquent debt is paid in full or otherwise brought current under a repayment plan approved by the Federal agency that is the holder of the debt. The day that we received a "clear" CAIVRS for the borrower from HUD, we issued a clear to close. Shortly thereafter, the borrower requested a transfer letter for the appraisal to get financing elsewhere. Again, consulting with HUD about transfer letters ... lender A
provides a copy of the original appraisal to lender B who wants the appraiser
to change the name of the client, may the appraiser readdress the appraisal or
transfer a completed appraisal report in order to change the name of client in
the appraisal report? No. In these situations HUD requires that the original
appraiser perform a new appraisal assignment (see FAQ #74 and Advisory Opinion
# 26 in the 2008-2009 edition of USPAP)The client also was given a copy of the appraisal report the same day we received it as is the case with all of our clients.I am sorry we were not able to help this client close on their loan. We were as efficient as we could be in getting the clear to close the minute that the government would allow.
Thank you for your updated reply. I can certainly
understand the frustration of the client, as it was a long process that
ultimately ended in an unfavorable decision by underwriting.
We first made contact with the client on 10/17/2014, in which at
that time, we went over the basic application process and requested income
documentation to be able to verify the income for qualifying, as well for being
under the income limits. After about a week of back and forth, we
received all loan documents and determined that the [redacted] were approved for
a USDA loan and sent out a preliminary pre-qualication letter on
10/23/2014. At this time, they were within the income limits for the USDA
loan. Please note, this was a preliminary pre-qualification letter, not a
commitment to lend. On the letter, the specific verbiage states:
“This Loan Purchase Commitment shall be null and void if, in my or my
underwriter’s opinion, there is a material change in the financial condition,
employment of the borrower(s), occupancy, or any other material situations
prior to or at closing.”
Over the next 6+ months, the borrower was looking at potential
homes. We were constantly following up with them to see if they had found
any potential homes, had any updates to their financial situation, or just had
any general questions. The clients got a purchase contract on a home on
4/29/15. At this time, we requested all updated income
documentation. Once received, they were reviewed and determined that the
borrower was still under the income limits. It was extremely close, but
determined to be within the income limits. At that time, it was also
expressed to the borrower that they were close to the income limits and the
income would need to be recalculated by underwriting throughout the loan process
and all the way up until closing. If their year to date earnings go up,
even a small amount, that could affect their approval and ability to close.
On 5/11, the loan was conditionally approved by
underwriting. What this means, is the USDA underwriter, reviewed all
income documents, credit documents, asset documents, etc, and confirmed that
the [redacted] were qualified for the USDA home loan, and were within the income
limits at that time. However, it’s still not a commitment to lend or a clear
to close. There were “conditions” for the loan to get to the closing
table….i.e appraisal, title work, homeowner’s insurance, verifications of
employment, etc, etc. It took several weeks to gather all of these loan
conditions from the borrower and other 3rd parties and were sent
into underwriting on 6/3. We got an update from underwriting on 6/8, in
which the underwriter had determined that the borrowers were now potentially
over the income limits for the USDA loan.
USDA underwriting calculates income a little different than
other loan programs. They are looking to take the most aggressive income
calculation when determining the income for eligibility (essentially, to make
sure they are within the median income limits for that county and family
size). Upon receipt of all the updated paystubs and verifications it was
determined that their year to date earnings were over the limits. When it
was determined that the borrower’s year to date earnings were over the limits,
the Loan Officer, contacted the borrower immediately to update them and go over
all the income to make sure everyone was on the same page.
At this time, one of the borrower’s, [redacted], claimed
that his overtime earnings at his full time job were not likely to
continue. This seemed unordinary given he had received consistent
overtime earnings in 2013, 2014 and so far in 2015. Also, on the
verification of employment, the employer stated that the overtime income was
“likely” to continue. However, the borrower made definitive claims that
it was not going to continue. Given what the borrower was telling us, we
contacted the employer and the employer wrote a letter on [redacted]’s behalf
stating that “For the past two months [redacted] [[redacted]] has accrued overtime
due to a change in management loss. The management issue has been
resolved…” The problem was that this letter didn’t make any sense.
The employer was saying that the overtime was only for the last two months,
when he had been receiving it for the last two and a half years. The
underwriter determined that there was conflicting information on this letter vs
the original verification and had to go off the more aggressive of the two
income calculations (include the overtime income). The file was denied
for USDA financing. We then reached out to the borrower to look at other
financing types and the borrowers determined that they did not want to move
forward.
Revdex.com:Even with our issues now coming to a close, we had several more issues come up with this business before resolving our mortgage with them. They are very unprofessional and unorganized, and they often do not take responsibility for their actions. We had to even get our closing attorney's office involved with supervisors just so we could get in contact with the employees and close on the house after 5 proposed closing dates. All of the issues that came up were from lack of communication and coaching, as well as incompetent employees. This is by far the worst company we have ever had to deal with, and it was an absolute nightmare for our first house buying. I urge the Revdex.com to take a closer look into this company and reevaluate their procedures and lack of skills, organization, customer service, and general professionalism. We do not want to let this company intrude on anyone else's lives. We are accepting the resolution only because we are finished with the closing, and our money was returned to us. We appreciate the attempts to salvage our complaint, but any other excuses will not change our mind compared to what we have had to go through. Thank you for your responses, and PLEASE work on these issues.
Regards,
Josh Thompson
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
[redacted]
[redacted] applied for the Rural Development Loan and based on
credit and income, pre-qualified. She went into contract on a property and was
submitted into underwriting for conditional approval....
Unfortunately [redacted] had a unique situation with a bankruptcy
she had filed years earlier pertaining to a current property still in her name.
From our first call I informed [redacted] per RD Guidelines, you are not able to
currently own a property and purchase another unless you can show the current
residence is inadequate or relocating 100 miles away for employment. Otherwise
the property would need to be sold and title transferred out of her name.
[redacted] informed me according to her Attorney, she was protected
by the bankruptcy and that he was working on removing her from title of the
property. We assumed that the removal was something that he had been
working on for some time, but apparently he was trying to do a deed in lieu
which we found out after the loan was suspended and is not OK per USDA Guidelines.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear belowif my credit score was not sufficient enough then steps should have been taken to make it better before I was even given a pre-approval. it is not right to pre-approve someone and let them go shopping for a house and let them get so far into the process only to get let down. I was aware that credit cards needed to be paid off besides the one, and all were paid off within a two week time period, so with that being said the pre-approval should have been issued until these requirements were met. These credit cards should have been considered in the pre approval process as a part of my debt to income ratio. Maybe if I would have know earlier in the process that my income was not sufficient, then I would not have wasted my time. secondly there is nothing documenting that your company spent 430 dollars to repair my credit. Anything that was "incorrect" was corrected and sent back right away, which only included a couple of things like tax returns not being signed and one screen shot that did not have a creditor name on it. These two items were corrected and sent back within a day or two. Everything was submitted in a timely manner as said. There was another large cash deposit in the bank account that had been explained as a money received from my mother but the "fraud protection" measures were never taken for that so I don't understand why a car had to be explained and not that. Maybe you were not covering all bases as you should have. I was first told that the seller needed to pay 5% closing costs and then that was changed to 3%, I am not sure why but maybe that is the reason why we were told we had to pay 3200 down, but asked the loan officer about it several times and were told that he was "working on it" and that I would be getting a lower rate as well. I never got a straight answer on any of that. This does not resolve anything. You give consumers false hope, and should not pre approve anyone unless their credit is sufficient to do so. It is pretty funny that there have been 30 complaints against your company all for the same reasons as I have stated. We at least want the 525 back for the appraisal and will not stand down until we get it.
Regards,
[redacted]
The loan application took a longer than expected time to submit to the underwriter because your credit score fell below what was necessary to proceed and required credit updating in an attempt to get the credit rating back to where it was at the time of the pre-approval. You were informed what...
updated documentation was necessary for this in late March, but did not send in those documents until mid-April. Your credit update was ordered immediately upon receipt of updated credit card payment information, but other documents remained outstanding. We spent $430 to try and get your credit back to where it was. In regards to your concerns about not being informed of overtime and debt to income requirements during prequalification, your debt to income was acceptable to move forward when you first came to us. However, updated pay stubs showed that you were no longer receiving overtime payments, and as a result, your debt to income changed. This could not have been known at the time you prequalified. Furthermore, there were weeks that you were not working the assumed 40 hour work weeks, which also made things difficult. Some other points to be made… · The amount of money you were quoted for closing was for closing costs, not your down payment, which remained zero. · The appraisal couldn’t be ordered until certain documents were received, but these documents were not submitted timely and incorrectly without signatures and in unacceptable format such as screenshots, versus what was requested. · The request for the bill of sale of your fiancé’s car was a matter of fraud prevention, and all lenders are required to source large bank deposits like the one that occurred as a result of the sale.
I am sorry that you were dissatisfied with the loan process. We were still actively working your loan file when you withdrew your file with us to close with someone else. Therefore, we cannot refund you the monies for your appraisal.
Unfortunately, the loan did indeed take that long for one particular reason. The client had a blemish on their CAIVRS. CAIVRS stands for Credit Alert Verification Reporting System and it is a system maintained by the federal government that lists persons who have defaulted or had a loan...
foreclosed within the last three years on a debt owed to the Federal government or are currently delinquent on a debt owed to the Federal government. Examples of Federal debts include previous FHA or Veterans Administration home loans, Federal student loans, Small Business Administration loans and similar types of debts. A borrower is not eligible for a new government mortgage if he is presently delinquent on any type of Federal debt, unless the delinquent debt is paid in full or otherwise brought current under a repayment plan approved by the Federal agency that is the holder of the debt. The day that we received a "clear" CAIVRS for the borrower from HUD, we issued a clear to close. Shortly thereafter, the borrower requested a transfer letter for the appraisal to get financing elsewhere. Again, consulting with HUD about transfer letters ... lender A
provides a copy of the original appraisal to lender B who wants the appraiser
to change the name of the client, may the appraiser readdress the appraisal or
transfer a completed appraisal report in order to change the name of client in
the appraisal report? No. In these situations HUD requires that the original
appraiser perform a new appraisal assignment (see FAQ #74 and Advisory Opinion
# 26 in the 2008-2009 edition of USPAP)The client also was given a copy of the appraisal report the same day we received it as is the case with all of our clients.I am sorry we were not able to help this client close on their loan. We were as efficient as we could be in getting the clear to close the minute that the government would allow.
Thank you for your updated reply. I can certainly
understand the frustration of the client, as it was a long process that
ultimately ended in an unfavorable decision by underwriting.
We first made contact with the client on 10/17/2014, in which at
that time, we went over the basic application process and requested income
documentation to be able to verify the income for qualifying, as well for being
under the income limits. After about a week of back and forth, we
received all loan documents and determined that the [redacted] were approved for
a USDA loan and sent out a preliminary pre-qualication letter on
10/23/2014. At this time, they were within the income limits for the USDA
loan. Please note, this was a preliminary pre-qualification letter, not a
commitment to lend. On the letter, the specific verbiage states:
“This Loan Purchase Commitment shall be null and void if, in my or my
underwriter’s opinion, there is a material change in the financial condition,
employment of the borrower(s), occupancy, or any other material situations
prior to or at closing.”
Over the next 6+ months, the borrower was looking at potential
homes. We were constantly following up with them to see if they had found
any potential homes, had any updates to their financial situation, or just had
any general questions. The clients got a purchase contract on a home on
4/29/15. At this time, we requested all updated income
documentation. Once received, they were reviewed and determined that the
borrower was still under the income limits. It was extremely close, but
determined to be within the income limits. At that time, it was also
expressed to the borrower that they were close to the income limits and the
income would need to be recalculated by underwriting throughout the loan process
and all the way up until closing. If their year to date earnings go up,
even a small amount, that could affect their approval and ability to close.
On 5/11, the loan was conditionally approved by
underwriting. What this means, is the USDA underwriter, reviewed all
income documents, credit documents, asset documents, etc, and confirmed that
the [redacted] were qualified for the USDA home loan, and were within the income
limits at that time. However, it’s still not a commitment to lend or a clear
to close. There were “conditions” for the loan to get to the closing
table….i.e appraisal, title work, homeowner’s insurance, verifications of
employment, etc, etc. It took several weeks to gather all of these loan
conditions from the borrower and other 3rd parties and were sent
into underwriting on 6/3. We got an update from underwriting on 6/8, in
which the underwriter had determined that the borrowers were now potentially
over the income limits for the USDA loan.
USDA underwriting calculates income a little different than
other loan programs. They are looking to take the most aggressive income
calculation when determining the income for eligibility (essentially, to make
sure they are within the median income limits for that county and family
size). Upon receipt of all the updated paystubs and verifications it was
determined that their year to date earnings were over the limits. When it
was determined that the borrower’s year to date earnings were over the limits,
the Loan Officer, contacted the borrower immediately to update them and go over
all the income to make sure everyone was on the same page.
At this time, one of the borrower’s, [redacted], claimed
that his overtime earnings at his full time job were not likely to
continue. This seemed unordinary given he had received consistent
overtime earnings in 2013, 2014 and so far in 2015. Also, on the
verification of employment, the employer stated that the overtime income was
“likely” to continue. However, the borrower made definitive claims that
it was not going to continue. Given what the borrower was telling us, we
contacted the employer and the employer wrote a letter on [redacted]’s behalf
stating that “For the past two months [redacted] [[redacted]] has accrued overtime
due to a change in management loss. The management issue has been
resolved…” The problem was that this letter didn’t make any sense.
The employer was saying that the overtime was only for the last two months,
when he had been receiving it for the last two and a half years. The
underwriter determined that there was conflicting information on this letter vs
the original verification and had to go off the more aggressive of the two
income calculations (include the overtime income). The file was denied
for USDA financing. We then reached out to the borrower to look at other
financing types and the borrowers determined that they did not want to move
forward.
Revdex.com:Even with our issues now coming to a close, we had several more issues come up with this business before resolving our mortgage with them. They are very unprofessional and unorganized, and they often do not take responsibility for their actions. We had to even get our closing attorney's office involved with supervisors just so we could get in contact with the employees and close on the house after 5 proposed closing dates. All of the issues that came up were from lack of communication and coaching, as well as incompetent employees. This is by far the worst company we have ever had to deal with, and it was an absolute nightmare for our first house buying. I urge the Revdex.com to take a closer look into this company and reevaluate their procedures and lack of skills, organization, customer service, and general professionalism. We do not want to let this company intrude on anyone else's lives. We are accepting the resolution only because we are finished with the closing, and our money was returned to us. We appreciate the attempts to salvage our complaint, but any other excuses will not change our mind compared to what we have had to go through. Thank you for your responses, and PLEASE work on these issues.
Regards,
Josh Thompson
When you are getting a government loan, gift funds must be sourced and the donor refused to allow us to source the funds.
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
[redacted]
[redacted] applied for the Rural Development Loan and based on
credit and income, pre-qualified. She went into contract on a property and was
submitted into underwriting for conditional approval....
Unfortunately [redacted] had a unique situation with a bankruptcy
she had filed years earlier pertaining to a current property still in her name.
From our first call I informed [redacted] per RD Guidelines, you are not able to
currently own a property and purchase another unless you can show the current
residence is inadequate or relocating 100 miles away for employment. Otherwise
the property would need to be sold and title transferred out of her name.
[redacted] informed me according to her Attorney, she was protected
by the bankruptcy and that he was working on removing her from title of the
property. We assumed that the removal was something that he had been
working on for some time, but apparently he was trying to do a deed in lieu
which we found out after the loan was suspended and is not OK per USDA Guidelines.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear belowif my credit score was not sufficient enough then steps should have been taken to make it better before I was even given a pre-approval. it is not right to pre-approve someone and let them go shopping for a house and let them get so far into the process only to get let down. I was aware that credit cards needed to be paid off besides the one, and all were paid off within a two week time period, so with that being said the pre-approval should have been issued until these requirements were met. These credit cards should have been considered in the pre approval process as a part of my debt to income ratio. Maybe if I would have know earlier in the process that my income was not sufficient, then I would not have wasted my time. secondly there is nothing documenting that your company spent 430 dollars to repair my credit. Anything that was "incorrect" was corrected and sent back right away, which only included a couple of things like tax returns not being signed and one screen shot that did not have a creditor name on it. These two items were corrected and sent back within a day or two. Everything was submitted in a timely manner as said. There was another large cash deposit in the bank account that had been explained as a money received from my mother but the "fraud protection" measures were never taken for that so I don't understand why a car had to be explained and not that. Maybe you were not covering all bases as you should have. I was first told that the seller needed to pay 5% closing costs and then that was changed to 3%, I am not sure why but maybe that is the reason why we were told we had to pay 3200 down, but asked the loan officer about it several times and were told that he was "working on it" and that I would be getting a lower rate as well. I never got a straight answer on any of that. This does not resolve anything. You give consumers false hope, and should not pre approve anyone unless their credit is sufficient to do so. It is pretty funny that there have been 30 complaints against your company all for the same reasons as I have stated. We at least want the 525 back for the appraisal and will not stand down until we get it.
Regards,
[redacted]