Application, originator, mortgage broker

XXXX residents -husband & wife ( Borrowers ) existing CitiMortgage clients. CitiMortgage ( Lender ) maintains current mortgage, originating XX/XX/XXXX.
XX/XX/XXXX, borrowers initiate refinance effort aimed at paying off existing lender loan. Initiation with lender rep complainant will refer to her as ” XXXX ” – XX/XX/XXXX : Lender : ” unable to originate a new loan ” due to XXXX Assessment on property. Twelve weeks after initiation. Why twelve weeks?!
XX/XX/XXXX – XXXX County Tax Assessors Office forwards borrower ‘s updated/most current Property Tax Information to CitiMortgage Tax Department. Tax statement reflects the obvious and significant increase to borrower ‘s property tax bill as a result of an ” XXXX ” ( XXXX Assessment ) loan.
Elevated tax bill, increases borrower ‘s monthly payment to lender from XXXX to {$3100.00} – These increases additionally reflected in ” CitiMortgage Escrow Account Disclosure Statement ” funds of which disbursed on XX/XX/XXXX and reflected in the ” Annual Escrow Analysis ” produced/forwarded to borrowers by lender XX/XX/XXXX.
XX/XX/XXXX, – Borrowers email, PdF full color copy of their XXXX County Tax Assessor ‘s Statement to XXXX, text includes directing XXXX ‘s attention directly to line item where the XXXX Loan ( XXXX Assessment ) is listed. Increase to the tax bill-again-clearly reflected and assigned directly to property tax bill.
XX/XX/XXXX Borrower apprised by XXXX Program Subordination Mgr, that not only has lender previously entered into refinancing with XXXX Loans appropriately and satisfactorily subordinated to second position, lender loans have been funded – fully recorded – and are part of the public record.
Is there some type of discriminatory or other bias against these borrowers present in this failed transaction?
It can not be articulated strongly enough, that XXXX provided not XXXX, but XXXX separate, fully binding and compliant subordination ‘s to Citi upon request.

Leave a Reply