Watermark Capital Inc

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the 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 below
My complaint has nothing to do with the outcome, only the process Watermark failed to get the docs to the underwriters before the loan lock expiry They failed to communicate status They exposed me to identity theft by failing to password-protect sensitive financial data And, finally, they have failed to be accountable for their poor performance The failure of the loan to be approved is a red herring that Watermark is hiding behind Unless a loan applicant fits neatly into their expected profile and there are no interruptions whatsoever, going with Watermark exposes a client to a blown deal It's a good thing they don't charge directly for their application process -- it is likely to fail.
Regards,
*** ***

I
will attempt to answer this complaint with facts Mr*** started the process with Watermark to refinance his current
mortgage from an ARM to a year fixedOn Jan8,
his rate was locked
and his appraisal was orderedOn Jan19,Watermark received an email from
Mr*** stating "Rates have come down, and I just learned from the
appraiser that appraisals are no longer required to be transferable to another lender should I decide I can get a
better deal elsewhereSo I have postponed the appraisalGiven where things stand, I'd be open to hearing
your current rates, but otherwise I'm likely to hold off on applying for a mortgage until I can clean up the
credit reportUnless we move forward I would like the charge to my
credit card reversed." It was explained to Mr*** that since his
rate was locked there were not any optionsIt was also explained to MrTaylor
that if he was going to postpone the appraisal then Watermark would hold off on
working on his refinance since he was not committed to moving forwardHe
didn't specify one way or another what he wanted to doOn Jan26,
Watermark was notified by the Appraisal Management Company (AMC, an independent
party) that the appraiser had inspected Mr*** house. Nothing had been communicated to Watermark by
Mr*** at this point. Watermark followed up with Mr*** again,
at which point Mr*** confirmed he had rescheduled the appointment and the
appraiser was coming out on the 27thThe file was submitted on Feb11,
Processing this file required a lot of time and additional documentation from
the borrower as the majority of his income came from dividends and interestHe
had Schedule K-1's in and Schedule K-1's in On Feb23, Watermark
informed Mr*** that we were having some issues with his income as his debt
to income (DTI) ratio was too high and we needed to show more income, at which
point additional information was requestedIt is Watermark's goal to ensure
all clients receive the highest level of service and we regret that this
borrower was not satisfied with our level of work on this loanIn the initial
loan process the borrower cancelled an appraisal appointment and alluded to
cancelling the loan to make attempts to improve credit to obtain a better rate
at another lenderThis was interpreted internally as a formal request to stop
all work and so the credit underwrite was left unfinishedWhen the borrower
did re-initiate the loan with us and supplied additional documentation the loan
was declined due to high DTI ratios

My complaint #*** regarding Watermark Capitol has been resolved. They honored our
original agreement with the lenders credit and we had a quick close for our refinancingThank you so much for all your help, *** ***

Watermark will
attempt to address this complaint with facts. Watermark initially came
into contact with the client when the client
was seeking purchase
financing. The loan Watermark ended up
closing for the client was a refinance of their current residence.
The client
alleges multiple delays on the part of Watermark. The interest rate was locked on
for days for a refinance of the clients existing home. Watermark does
offer day rate locks, but since the client had not submitted all of the
required supporting documents, a day lock was required. After the refinance loan was locked, the
client informed Watermark they might cancel the refinance because they were
still entertaining purchasing a new home rather than refinancing their current
home. The client asked for pre-approval
letters for the homes they were making offers on up until 04.03.2015. The client confirmed on the evening
of Friday that they were not going to pursue a new home purchase. Their email stated ” Thank you
for your support and partnership through the process. We are excited to
get the refi done and will get the package of documentation to you Monday.” The additional documents were sent by the
client over the weekend and received by Watermark on Monday,
Watermark then packaged the loan and submitted it to processing the
same day, so Monday 04.06.2015.
Processing in turn had the loan file packaged and submitted to
underwriting by 04.09.2015. The
underwriting approval was received Friday 04.10.2015. One of the underwriting conditions was to
address the ** *** *** 2nd mortgage tied to the clients subject property. The ** *** *** had a zero ($0.00) balance. Watermark recommended that the client close
the ** *** *** for the sake of expediting the closing.
The client opted to keep the ** *** *** open, but go through the
subordination process. The client was
advised the subordination process could be time consuming. The client indicated they could get the
subordination completed faster. Watermark
finally obtained the ** *** subordination approval on 05.04.2015.
The client
alleges they were promised there would no extension costs. Watermark informed the client they would do
their best to not have to charge an extension.
However, two day rate lock extensions were required. The client incurred one extension cost and
Watermark incurred the other extension cost
In summary,
Watermark required a longer than lock period due to insufficient supporting
documents in the loan file. Those
documents were provided one week after the lock date. The client was still considering purchasing a
new home during the refinance process. The
loan was underwritten and conditionally approved. One of the conditions was that the ** *** *** needed to be closed or subordinated.
The clients chose to subordinate their ** *** *** 2nd
mortgage. Watermark has no control over ** *** subordination review turn times. The ** *** turn times were lengthy The lock was going to expire and needed to be extended twice. Watermark covered one extension and the
client covered the other extension.
Watermark has fulfilled its obligation and therefore no refund is due
Thank you

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the 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 below.Watermark continues to blame me for their inability to perform While it is true that I postponed the appraisal in light of new information regarding the revised regulations for appraisals, this only delayed the loan process by a few days I was very clear with Watermark that I wished to proceed at the time I rescheduled the appraisal, and I have copies of all e-mail correspondence proving it Watermark simply dropped the ball, presumably because they had too many in the air It always took multiple e-mail inquiries on my part to get any response from them, and on several occasions Watermark e-mailed sensitive financial information (including social security numbers) without password protection
I have financed/refinanced literally dozens of times over the past years and never before experienced a mortgage loan process that was unable to complete within the loan lock period I was upfront with Watermark about my income being primarily due to investments from the get-go, yet they continue to blame me for their inability to get the job done If the underwriters don't like what they see that is one thing; Watermark simply didn't get the documentation to them in time They seem to run an assembly line process and if any hiccup occurs the customer is quickly forgotten
Regards,
*** ***

It is Watermarks goal to have complete customer satisfaction throughout the loan processAfter review of the complaint management conducted a thorough audit of the loan closingThis was a very complex file with multiple IRA distributionsThe borrower is retired and at first review without supporting documentation of the application the borrower received a pre-approvalWhen the loan was underwritten it was determined the borrower did not qualifyThis file had to receive an exception of which the exception was grantedThere were two extensions required and Watermark absorbed one of those extensionsWhen the borrower responded to Watermark he was quoted a no cost loanThis means no lender fee and what the borrower described in the complaint had to do with title and escrow feesThis is explained at the site the borrower went to for a rate quoteIn conclusionWatermark was able to close this transaction through an exception by the investor notwithstanding qualifying due to the IRA distributions and the investor guidelinesWe are sorry the borrower is not satisfied with the process but it was determined by management that Watermark acted appropriately throughout the loan processThe borrower had every opportunity to cancel but decided to move forward despite the extensionWe would be happy to discuss further with the borrower if he wishes to speak with management

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the 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 below
[This is simply more of the same from this unethical lender. They bullied us into paying for the first extension, something they promised they would not do several times through the process. They did pay for a second extension after we refused to pay for it based on additional delays on their part. ]
Regards,
*** ***

On 12/9/2013, Mrs*** called Watermark Home Loans asking for a
quote on YR Adjustable Rate Mortgage refinance. She was explained the
various details of this loan, including the various adjustment caps associated
with these products. Most of these loans have a
lifetime adjustment cap
of up to 5%. She was quoted a 2.625% start rate and was disclosed that
these rates could go as high as 7.625%. These figures were clearly
disclosed on all forms, including the Good Faith Estimate and Truth in Lending
Statement. Mrs*** was offered a free quote and has not paid out of
pocket for any expenses involving this loan
On 1/2/2014, she called the loan officer asking for a phone
call from management. Our manager, *** ***, spoke with her that day
and discovered she was upset that she had not heard from her loan officer since
12/19/13. When she was explained that we had an email from Mrs
*** saying that she would be on vacation for a week starting 12/19/13, she
then proceeded to say that she had called numerous times and had none of those
calls returned, yet the loan officer did not have any missed calls or voicemails
from the client during that time. Mrs*** then asked *** to have
someone from ownership call her as well and an owner called her the next day on
1/3/14, and she has not returned that call
In summary, if any client asks for an adjustable rate mortgage,
we are within our rights to offer that product and we are obligated by law to
disclose potential rate adjustments/increases, whether or not a client agrees
to those adjustments. Mrs*** was not coerced into any loan and we did
not by any means “bait and switch” her into this product as she initially asked
to be quoted on this product

Avoid at all cost! Unprofessional, money extortion practice, they been dragging it for two months for no reason then have asked to pay for the lock extension, have lost time and money on simple refi!
Avoid!

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the 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 below
Watermark continues to blame me for their inability to perform While it is true that I postponed the appraisal in light of new information regarding the revised regulations for appraisals, this only delayed the loan process by a few days I was very clear with Watermark that I wished to proceed at the time I rescheduled the appraisal, and I have copies of all e-mail correspondence proving it Watermark simply dropped the ball, presumably because they had too many in the air It always took multiple e-mail inquiries on my part to get any response from them, and on several occasions Watermark e-mailed sensitive financial information (including social security numbers) without password protection I have financed/refinanced literally dozens of times over the past years and never before experienced a mortgage loan process that was unable to complete within the loan lock period I was upfront with Watermark about my income being primarily due to investments from the get-go, yet they continue to blame me for their inability to get the job done If the underwriters don't like what they see that is one thing; Watermark simply didn't get the documentation to them in time They seem to run an assembly line process and if any hiccup occurs the customer is quickly forgotten
Regards,
*** ***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed
the 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 below
This is a non-response; their response to CFPB was to absolve themselves of any responsibility Their position is that my case was difficult, required extra documentation and I could have withdrawn at any time This, in spite of fact that I had laid out specifics of my situation ahead of time and was assured there would be no problem: I had immediately (first day)sent all docs they eventually requested and used; and,I was continually reassured that funding was imminent.
*** ***

I had a unique situation and David P was great to work with Communication was excellent (both phone and email) Answered all my questions very promptly

Watermark will
attempt to address this complaint with facts.  Watermark initially came
into contact with the client when the client was seeking...

purchase
financing.  The loan Watermark ended up
closing for the client was a refinance of their current residence. 
The client
alleges multiple delays on the part of Watermark.    The interest rate was locked on 03.31.2015
for 40 days for a refinance of the clients existing home.  Watermark does
offer 25 day rate locks, but since the client had not submitted all of the
required supporting documents, a 40 day lock was required.  After the refinance loan was locked, the
client informed Watermark they might cancel the refinance because they were
still entertaining purchasing a new home rather than refinancing their current
home.  The client asked for pre-approval
letters for the homes they were making offers on up until 04.03.2015.  The client confirmed on the evening
of Friday 04.03.2015 that they were not going to pursue a new home purchase.  Their email stated ” Thank you
for your support and partnership through the process.  We are excited to
get the refi done and will get the package of documentation to you Monday.”  The additional documents were sent by the
client over the weekend and received by Watermark on Monday, 04.06.2015.
Watermark then packaged the loan and submitted it to processing the
same day, so Monday 04.06.2015. 
Processing in turn had the loan file packaged and submitted to
underwriting by 04.09.2015.  The
underwriting approval was received Friday 04.10.2015.  One of the underwriting conditions was to
address the [redacted] 2nd mortgage tied to the clients subject property.  The [redacted] had a zero ($0.00) balance.  Watermark recommended that the client close
the [redacted] for the sake of expediting the closing. 
The client opted to keep the [redacted] open, but go through the
subordination process.  The client was
advised the subordination process could be time consuming.  The client indicated they could get the
subordination completed faster.  Watermark
finally obtained the [redacted] subordination approval on 05.04.2015. 
The client
alleges they were promised there would no extension costs.  Watermark informed the client they would do
their best to not have to charge an extension. 
However, two 7 day rate lock extensions were required.  The client incurred one extension cost and
Watermark incurred the other extension cost.
In summary,
Watermark required a longer than normal lock period due to insufficient supporting
documents in the loan file.  Those
documents were provided one week after the lock date.  The client was still considering purchasing a
new home during the refinance process.  The
loan was underwritten and conditionally approved.  One of the conditions was that the [redacted] needed to be closed or subordinated. 
The clients chose to subordinate their [redacted] 2nd
mortgage.  Watermark has no control over [redacted] subordination review turn times.  The [redacted] turn times were lengthy.  The lock was going to expire and needed to be extended twice.  Watermark covered one extension and the
client covered the other extension. 
Watermark has fulfilled its obligation and therefore no refund is due.
Thank you.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the 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.Online response dated 1/14/2017.In regards to ID #[redacted] with Watermark Capital, Inc.In answer to their last business response, I never, at any point, approved or authorized by "wet signature" or otherwise, a credit card payment for $500.00 for an appraisal with Watermark Capital, Inc. & mortgage broker, [redacted].  On an electronic statement 5/24/2016, I did change and correct an attached emailed electronic statement to indicate I authorize only a $350.00 approval amount for an appraisal & crossed out $500.00.  At which time, all my credit card account information was given to Watermark Capital, Inc.  It was this corrected form by me where mortgage broker, [redacted], obtained my credit card information to submit to a third party for an appraisal amount which, again, I did not authorize or approve for $500.00.  I was locked out of the website when I cancelled the refinance process.  I called Watermark Home Loans 3 X's to obtain copies of all the paperwork I did sign and even though I was told several times that copies would be mailed to me, to this date I have not received any copies.I am requesting a refund of $150.00 to resolve this issue.  This amount is the difference between the authorized amount of $350.00 and the unauthorized amount of $500.00.  An acceptance of wrong-doing on Mr. [redacted] part would be nice but I am not holding my breath.Please confirm receipt of this email.  Thank you.[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the 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.
We continue to believe that it was inappropriate for Watermark to add these fees after giving us a loan estimate.  We hope that the Revdex.com can help future customers avoid paying these surprise fees.
Regards,
[redacted]

Excellent!! I was specific with my requirements and they followed through with every request. It was quick and I wasn't asked for documentation multiple times as I have had to in the past with other refi's. We received an excellent rate and were happy with all aspects of our re-fi. Thank you Eric H & Nick D especially for their professional and attentive service!!

Watermark disclosed and charged the appropriate amount for the appraisal.  The appraisal inspection was completed and the appraisal report was provided to the client.  The original terms were honored, but the client chose to terminate the transaction.  Therefore, no refund is due.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the 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.
id="docs-internal-guid-35756262-d358-05d4-600b-ad74a36a4594">I will first say that again I stand by all statements made by me. Watermark’s mudslinging is an unprofessional attempt to shift blame.
“Mr. [redacted]’s purchase loan contained multiple challenges that all caused delays.”
RE: The challenges with my loan were minimal. These are the EXACT same challenges that were overcome by Watermark when the original loan was serviced. Also, the loan was processed by another company after I severed ties with Watermark with absolutely no problems or challenges and in less than 3 weeks. No co-signer, and at a 45% DTI. Something that Watermark could not accomplish.
“Finally, a co-borrower was needed in order to qualify for the home loan.”
RE: Watermark assured me I had a D.U. approval without a co-signer again and again. I offered the co-signer (Who was a co-borrower on the original loan) as a viable option if needed however MONTHS went by without any DTI red flags and assurance that it was not needed. Again, Watermark had all docs from the first loan. When requested, documentation was expediently given, usually the same day.
“The only way that rental income could be used to qualify was if an appraisal was obtained validating the value of that property.  This appraisal on a property that was not the subject property delayed the process even further.”
RE: This is an absolute lie. A appraisal was never requested and the rents from this particular property were never in question. It would have been done ASAP if needed/requested.
 
“Mr. [redacted]’s home loan did not have any type of pre-payment penalty.  Mr. [redacted]s Good Faith Estimate and Final HUD both clearly confirm his loan does not have a Pre-Payment Penalty.”
RE: I was manipulated by my Mortgage Banker into thinking that the commissions paid to Watermark by Chase Bank for acquiring the loan would need to be paid back if the loan was refinanced within 6 months of the origination date. Watermark’s Mortgage Banker told me they were well within their rights to sue me for damages.
“Watermark attempted to refinance Mr. [redacted], but encountered challenges validating documentation and information provided verifying occupancy of an applicant and rental income necessary to qualify for the new loan. There were inconsistencies with the documentation provided at the time of purchase.”
RE: All documentation provided was discussed and approved by the Mortgage Banker. He was considered one of their best and holds Law Degree. If there were any issues initially, they should have been discussed and corrected before the original loan was written and sold.
“He also demanded Watermark remove his mother from the loan, but Watermark deemed her income necessary to qualify.  Although Mr. [redacted] later agreed to keep his mom on the loan, there were now other concerns related to the loan application.”
RE: There was never a time where I was ever in a position where I could demand for anything. The purpose of the refinance was to lower the interest rate. Getting the co-borrower off the loan was a bonus. Again I was assured that the co-borrower was unnecessary for months without any red flags.
“Due to these inconsistencies, Watermark declined Mr. [redacted]’s refinance loan and no refund is due.”
RE: This is interesting… Watermark did not decline anything. I Left them after 6 months of excuses and waiting for something to happen that never did. AT NO TIME WAS MY LOAN DENIED OR DECLINED. I would still be waiting and listening to excuses if I didn't switch companies. 
[redacted]The most interesting part of this is Watermark contacted me after I complained to the Revdex.com to verbally apologize, and offer me $1000. At that point I was done and willing to just let this go but Watermarks attempt to shift the blame on me is unprofessional and inexcusable.[redacted]
Again, I went to another Mortgage company and they had no problems at all with the loan. I did not need a co-signer and the loan closed in 3 weeks. This proves that I was forthcoming and that everything I have stated was truthful.
Regards,
[redacted]

Watermark understands it can be frustrating when a client does not qualify for a loan they think they should qualify for.  In this case, the clients home loan was declined because their income relative to expenses did not meet underwriting guidelines.  This is not about blame, but about the ability to qualify.  Time would not have improved the overall Debt to Income ratio.

[redacted],
                I looked
and I do not have any documentation I can submit that confirms there wouldn’t be
any extension fees.  My wife and I were
both told by [redacted] that they would not charge us an extension fee over
the phone.  Their response to my initial
complaint does confirm that a promise was made "Watermark informed the
client they would do their best to not have to charge an extension."
I hope that is enough.
Please let me know if I can submit anything else.
Thanks,
[redacted]