FHA mortgage Trouble during payment process
Seterus, Inc. Mortgage department,
Remove the escrow account for loan # - due to insufficient capabilities of Seterus Inc and its contracted vendors in respect to managing the escrow account. In reviewing the escrow analysis history of the escrow account, the following observations have been made : 1 ) In the escrow analysis dated -/-/- there was a shortage/deficiency in the amount of $220.00. To counter the shortage/deficiency the payment was increased by $37.00 from $1500.00 to $1600.00 over a 12-month period.
2 ) In the escrow analysis dated -/-/- there was a shortage/deficiency in the amount of $170.00. To correct the shortage/deficiency the payment was decreased by - $1.00 from $1600.00 to $1600.00. over a 36-month period. How is decreasing the payment for a 36-month period going to correct a shortage/deficiency? 3 ) In the escrow analysis dated -/-/- there was a shortage/deficiency of $1100.00. To correct the shortage/deficiency the payment was increased by $94.00 from $1600.00 to $1700.00. On page one of the escrow analysis it states that the shortage would be spread over a 36-month period ; however, on
If the shortage/deficiency is spread over a 36-month period the increased payment amount of $94.00 calculates to $3400.00. How was this actually administered? 4 ) In the escrow analysis dated -/-/- there was a shortage/deficiency in the amount of $1200.00. To correct the shortage/deficiency the payment was increased by $21.00 from $1700.00 to $1700.00 for a 36-month period. When you calculate the increase of $21.00 it comes to a total of $780.00 which means the shortage/deficiency would not be corrected as indicated in your letter. 5 ) In the escrow analysis dates -/-/- in the Actual Escrow Account History table it states that a payment was made on -/-/- to the County of - for $2300.00. This is a false statement as no payment was made. The payment was actually made by the borrow/homeowner on -/-/-. Again in the Actual Escrow Account History table it states that a payment was made on -/-/- to the hazard insurance provider for $840.00. This is again a false statement as no payment was made. The payment was actually made by the borrower/homeowner on -/-/- 6 ) The county tax bill for the fiscal year - -, - to - -, - indicated that there was a tax default for the - property tax year. In the Actual Escrow Account History table for the analysis dated -/-/- it indicates that the shortage in tax payment was made from the escrow account on -/-/- for $100.00 and th.e penalty was paid from the escrow account on -/-/- for $100.00. The penalty is the responsibility of the escrow facilitator, not the borrower. The penalty of $100.00 needs to be refunded to the homeowner. Based on the above observations, the homeowner took over the responsibility of paying the property taxes and hazard insurance beginning in -. The homeowner has since paid the 2nd installment of the property tax for the - fiscal year, the hazard insurance for the fiscal year of -, and the - installment of the - fiscal year property tax. Seterus Inc. was notified - -, - to close the escrow account and despite many efforts by the borrow/homeowner and several managers at Seterus Inc, the escrow account remains open and continues to be funded. In doing so, Seterus Inc. has been misappropriating the monthly payments it has been receiving force the account in to default status. These actions are reckless and need to be immediately corrected.
Seterus, Inc. customer in California
Nov 22, 2017
* Source: CFPB Complaint Database
Get personal financial help today. Free tools, resources, and support you need.Help Me
Submit a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau todayFile Complaint
Stop the phone calls, learn how to stop harassing phone callsStop Calls