Watermark Capital Inc

We are extremely happy we went with Watermark Home Loans! Our loan officer was David P. He was amazing to work with! He was very professional, knowledgeable, and super nice to talk with! He kept us updated on everything. He made the whole process very smooth and exciting! We signed our escrow papers on a Thursday and by Friday the next day at 5pm we were closed, funded and recorded! Not sure how typical that is but it was amazing! I highly, highly recommend David P at Watermark Home Loans!

I
will attempt to answer this complaint with facts.  Mr. [redacted] started the process with Watermark to refinance his current
mortgage from an ARM to a 30 year fixed. On Jan. 8, 2015 his rate was locked
and his appraisal was ordered. On Jan. 19,2015 Watermark...

received an email from
Mr. [redacted] 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 elsewhere. So I have postponed the appraisal. Given 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 report. Unless we move forward I would like the charge to my
credit card reversed."  It was explained to Mr. [redacted] that since his
rate was locked there were not any options. It was also explained to Mr. Taylor
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 forward. He
didn't specify one way or another what he wanted to do. On Jan. 26, 2015
Watermark was notified by the Appraisal Management Company (AMC, an independent
party) that the appraiser had inspected Mr. [redacted] house.  Nothing had been communicated to Watermark by
Mr. [redacted] at this point.   Watermark followed up with Mr. [redacted] again,
at which point Mr. [redacted] confirmed he had rescheduled the appointment and the
appraiser was coming out on the 27th. The file was submitted on Feb. 11, 2014.
Processing this file required a lot of time and additional documentation from
the borrower as the majority of his income came from dividends and interest. He
had 23 Schedule K-1's in 2013 and 22 Schedule K-1's in 2012. On Feb. 23, 2015 Watermark
informed Mr. [redacted] 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 requested. It 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 loan. In 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 lender. This was interpreted internally as a formal request to stop
all work and so the credit underwrite was left unfinished. When the borrower
did re-initiate the loan with us and supplied additional documentation the loan
was declined due to high DTI ratios.

I just got my loan funded today, I highly recommended this company specially with David P. He is a very professional loan officer. And with David's help, the transaction was very sufficient. David and his management were willing to accommodate my schedule. I give David and this company a five star.

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. This resolution offer is unacceptable.  It doesn't offer any resolution.  All this offers us is another view into the unethical practices of Watermark home loans.  Their facts are intentionally and deliberately designed to blame US Bank for their delays.  It is true that US Bank did not respond until 5/4.  However, this was due to a Watermark delay.  We provided the final subordination documentation to Watermark on 04/17.  Watermark advised the completed packet would be sent out immediately upon receipt.  On 04/22, we confirmed with Watermark that the subordination packet had not been received at US Bank.  No response from Watermark.  We sent an urgent email on 04/23 advising US Bank still had not received the subordination packet, and advised that we were concerned about the lock time line since we had at that point lost four days due to Watermark not sending out the packet.  Finally, on 04/28 Watermark advised the packet would be going out the same day.  On May 1, US Bank advised they still had not received the actual subordination request or payment.  We followed up again with Watermark, and on 05/01 they finally sent the packet overnight for delivery at US Bank on 05/02.  We worked with our contacts at US Bank to expedite processing, so the response was received at Watermark by 5/4, within two business days and in three days less than their standard processing time.  This represents a delay of nine (9) full business days due to lack of follow up an mismanagement of the subordination packet by Watermark.Watermark's response is a misrepresentation of the facts.  Their management of this piece of the process alone cost a nine day delay.  My position is unchanged, and I feel Watermark still owes me a $500 refund which has been further supported by their facts.
Regards,
[redacted]

Watermark always strives to meet its clients expectations.  In this case, the client has submitted an inquiry through a regulatory agency.  Watermark policy is to provide all responses through the regulatory agency.  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.
 
This resolution offer is unacceptable.  It doesn't offer any resolution.  All this offers us is another view into the unethical practices of Watermark home loans.  Their facts are intentionally and deliberately designed to blame US Bank for their delays.  It is true that US Bank did not respond until 5/4.  However, this was due to a Watermark delay.  We provided the final subordination documentation to Watermark on 04/17.  Watermark advised the completed packet would be sent out immediately upon receipt.  On 04/22, we confirmed with Watermark that the subordination packet had not been received at US Bank.  No response from Watermark.  We sent an urgent email on 04/23 advising US Bank still had not received the subordination packet, and advised that we were concerned about the lock time line since we had at that point lost four days due to Watermark not sending out the packet.  Finally, on 04/28 Watermark advised the packet would be going out the same day.  On May 1, US Bank advised they still had not received the actual subordination request or payment.  We followed up again with Watermark, and on 05/01 they finally sent the packet overnight for delivery at US Bank on 05/02.  We worked with our contacts at US Bank to expedite processing, so the response was received at Watermark by 5/4, within two business days and in three days less than their standard processing time.  This represents a delay of nine (9) full business days due to lack of follow up an mismanagement of the subordination packet by Watermark.
Watermark's response is a misrepresentation of the facts.  Their management of this piece of the process alone cost a nine day delay.  My position is unchanged, and I feel Watermark still owes me a $500 refund which has been further supported by their facts.
Regards,
[redacted]

Watermark did need to extend the rate lock, which reduced the lender credit.  However, there was a agent credit in addition to the lender credit.  The combined credits exceeded the total costs of the loan, so the end result was the same, which is a no cost transaction.  The client was...

not harmed because the excess credits could not be used at that point in the transaction.  Therefore, no refund is due.

I worked with David P at Watermark. He was very experienced and explained every step of the refi process. He was able to secure thousands in Lender Credits... which added up to a no fee loan for us. We started at the end of August 2016 and had a new loan and lower rate in place the 1st week of October 2016 (six weeks). I never felt pressured. I recommend David to anyone looking to refinance.

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.
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]

I AM RESPONDING TO COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] AND Revdex.com LETTERS DATED 12/1/16 & 12/7/16. FIRSTLY, I DID NOT RECEIVE Revdex.com CLOSING CASE LETTERS UNTIL 12/13/16 WHEN A RESPONSE WAS NECESSARY WITHIN 5 DAYS. NO INFORMATION WAS GIVEN ONLINE. SECONDLY, THE MAIN ISSUE OF MY COMPLAINT AGAINST WATERMARK CAPITAL INC. WAS AN AUTOMATIC WITHDRAWAL OF FUNDS AGAINST MY CREDIT CARD WHICH WAS NOT AUTHORIZED AND/OR APPROVED BY ME. MY CREDIT CARD INFORMATION WAS GIVEN TO AND OBTAINED BY WATERMARK CAPITAL WITH A SIGNED ESIGNATURE ONLINE STATEMENT TO INITIATE A REFINANCE, HOWEVER, MY ESIGNATURE AUTHORIZATION AND/OR APPROVAL WAS FOR ONLY $350.00, NOT $500.00 AS I INDICATED ON THIS SAME STATEMENT WHEN I CHANGED THE AMOUNT TO $350.00. I DID NOT DISCOVER THE CREDIT CARD DISCREPANCY UNTIL 7-10 DAYS LATER. THE BROKER NEVER TOLD ME HE WITHDREW $500. UNTIL I CALLED HIM 10 DAYS LATER. WHEN I ADVISED HIM I NEVER APPROVED AN APPRAISAL FOR $500. EVEN FROM THE START WITH THE 1ST PHONE CALL TO WATERMARK I ADVISED THE BROKER IT WAS EXCESSIVE. FROM THE START AND THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE REFI PROCESS HE INFORMED ME NUMEROUS TIMES, WE CAN WORK THIS OUT AT A LATER DATE. PLEASE RECONSIDER YOUR DECISION ON THIS COMPLAINT. TO BE FAIR, I AM ONLY REQUESTING A REFUND AT THIS POINT FOR $150.00, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN $500. & $350. SINCE I DID AGREE AND AUTHORIZE TO PAY $350.00 WITH MY ESIGNATURE ON THE MORTGAGE PAPERS.

Watermark Home Loans always strives to go above and beyond our client’s expectations. We will attempt to address all concerns with facts. The client alleges her loan was initiated with Watermark on March 18th, 2016 and all requested paperwork was faxed over on March 22nd, 2016.  However, the...

first contact Watermark ever had with the client was on April 27th, 2016.  A cursory review of the consumer’s credit report indicates her credit was run by another direct lender on March 23rd, 2016.  It appears the client is confusing Watermark with another direct lender, who the client applied with prior to applying with Watermark.  Presumably the client did not qualify with the other direct lender, so the client then submitted an inquiry with Watermark in late April.  Upon initial review of the clients application, it was identified there would be numerous challenges that needed to be overcome in order to bring the home loan to fruition.  The client had credit scores in the 600 range, disputed trade lines on credit, collections, and a Bankruptcy, all of which are problematic when applying for a home loan. Watermark pulled two (2) credit reports for the client. The first report was pulled May 2nd, 2016 and the second report was pulled June 28th, 2016. The first credit report reflected two disputed collections, a medical collection and another collection. Both needed to be removed from credit for purposes of completing the loan. Watermark worked very diligently to obtain proper documentation from the client in order to get this item removed from all three bureaus on the credit report. Watermark also paid $95.00 to have these items removed from the credit report in under 30 days via a process called rapid rescoring. These items were successfully deleted from the credit report in late June and the second credit report was immediately run no longer reflecting the disputed accounts. As it pertains to the appraisal, although appraisal fees are typically $450.00, they can vary by state, region, property type and type of occupancy. In this case, the appraisal fee was in fact $455.00. However, a 1004mc Market Conditions Addendum to the Appraisal Report was required by the Appraisal Management Company (AMC) at a $45.00 additional charge, bringing the total to $500.00. The AMC is an independent 3rd party vendor contracting by Watermark to assign the appraisal inspection to an independent licensed appraiser. Watermark properly disclosed the fees. Watermark worked very diligently to get this problematic loan fully approved and ready to close, but the client cancelled the transaction. In sum[redacted], Watermark fulfilled its fiduciary responsibility to the client and no refund is owed. On behalf of Watermark Home Loans, we are sorry we did not meet the client’s expectations.

There were delays by both the borrower and the lender.  Therefore, the lender covered 50% of the extension costs.  Thank you.

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

Watermark has a wet signed Credit Card Authorization Form from the client dated 05.05.2016 and a wet signed Loan Estimate from the client dated 05.11.2016.  Watermark disclosed a $550.00 appraisal fee even though the actual appraisal costs ended up being lower.  Watermark fulfilled its fiduciary responsibility to the client.  Therefore, no refund is due.

Contacted David P of Watermark Mortgage for the refinance of my home. Had a very good experience; David helped us through the on line application and electronic signature process as my home computer could not work their system...
David and his staff were there for us all the way and Watermark held our rate lock past the deadline when they got delayed in processing the loan.
I would rate David P and his staff at Watermark 5 Stars for their work on my loan...

David P and his team made refinancing my home smooth and easy.

I have refinanced several times in past years, but never was it as easy and smooth going as David P of Watermark Home Loans made it. He was informative and knowledgeable and gave us the best rate possible. All our questions and concerns were handled with ease and promptness. It was a pleasure working with him. I highly recommend him and his company.

I would highly recommend Watermark Home Loans! My experience was just wonderful. I was nervous going with an online company but they had great Bankrate ratings and online reviews. From my first phone call to the final closing, things were very smooth. Javier was excellent and very professional.

Our loan officer David P of Watermark Home Loans definitely went above and beyond his job. 5 stars really isn’t enough to give it to him. We found David online through Bankrate.com. We were very skeptical about using online lender at first. However David made us feel very comfortable with him. Just because he sees some downfalls doesn't mean he gives up he continues to work at it until he succeeds. David has so many clients at hands but I was amazed by how he was still able to respond to my emails and phone calls in a very timely manner. It’s not just about the deliver on time; it’s the accuracy of his response and the knowledge he has that really makes the whole home buying process smooth. I felt I could call at any time and ask him to clarify anything. No question was too silly! It saved us a huge amount of time and hassle. I would highly recommend.