Date Received: 2022-01-09
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement
Subissue: Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement
Consumer Complaint: Hi CFPB, My complaint history is as follows : 1. I identified a fraudulent subscription on my account. 2. I cancelled my card number with Fidelity Visa and received a new card and a new number. 3. After receiving a new number, prior authorizations were still granted and I was charged XXXX. On a side note, I just checked my card and I see thousands of dollars of fraudulent subscription pre-approvals that I am not familiar with. Many are one time charges that are set as subscriptions. The law/regulation needs to change so when a card number is changed ALL subscriptions pre-approvals are voided. Prep-approvals CAN not be more than 1 week prior to the charge. 4. I reported the fraud. 5. My claim was denied as they responded in 1 sentence I reviewed a service 6. I called for additional documentation they agreed to send it. It was never sent. I have been with this credit card vendor for years and this is my last recourse before closing my account in its entirely.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: CA
Zip: 90505
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-01-09
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-01-09
Issue: Opening an account
Subissue: Account opened as a result of fraud
Consumer Complaint: I went to U.S. bank to cash a work check and the employees working there beat me up for my work check the employee grabbed my head and slammed it on the desk and said she wasn't giving me my work money or my check back the U.S.bank I went to to cash my work check is located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX California please be careful the employees there said they was going to XXXX me for my work money
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: CA
Zip: 95758
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-01-09
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-01-08
Issue: Incorrect information on your report
Subissue: Information belongs to someone else
Consumer Complaint: Dear President Office of US Bank : U.S Bancorp Center XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, MN XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Last XXXX : XXXX Date XX/XX/XXXX You stated that I owe an alleged debt to US Bank account XXXX XXXX I would like U.S Bancorp to validate this debt under the USC, UCC, FCRA, FDCPA. I am requesting validation of debt request of U.S Code 1692. FCRA 605B ( 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ) ( a ) Block. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a consumer reporting agency shall block the reporting of any information in the file of a consumer that the consumer identifies as information that resulted from an alleged identity theft, not later than 4 business days after the date of receipt by such agency of ( 2 ) a copy of an identity theft report. Please provide the following documentation for the alleged debt to US Bank starting in XXXX. Under my God- giving rights please send me a sworn affidavit statement stating US Bank still has the original signed contract with my two wet signatures under penalties of perjury in reference to my rights under the UCC Code 3-308. Please also send me a copy of the commerce banking note to this alleged debt. Please also send a certified contract not a photocopy of this alleged debt. Please also send a true bill. A true bill the written decision of a grand jury ( signed by the grand jury foreperson ) that it has heard sufficient evidence from the prosecution to believe that an accused person probably committed a crime and should be indicted. Thus, the indictment is sent to the court. Please also send a lawful contract signed by both parties which makes it binding between both parties have given substance according to the contract law of 1872. Please send all validations of debt and paperwork linked to the alleged account from the alleged creditor. Please certify in a sworn affidavit under the penalties of perjury and color able law that all states of rebuttal to this sworn are true and correct to the best of your ability with your signed signature. Please also send me a copy of this sworn affidavit via receipt of this letter. Please respond in 10 days of this a latter will become a binding agreement according to contract law. Furthermore, I will have to opportunity to cue in place a judgment on this company. If you fail to respond I am going to presume the debt isnt true in the first place. I am respectfully requesting this account be deleted and removed from my credit profile sense it is ruining my credit worthiness and my ultimate pursuit of happiness under the United Stated Constitution. To deny the procedure to discharge public debt is fraud, conspiracy, racketeering, collusion, theft of public funds and a dishonor in commerce according to the UCC Code. I am exercising my God for saking right this account must be deleted from my credit profile on all 3 bureaus immediately or I will pursue legal action.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: IN
Zip: 473XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-01-08
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-01-08
Issue: Managing the loan or lease
Subissue: Billing problem
Consumer Complaint: Payment made XX/XX/XXXX for {$1200.00}. System said no payment due until XX/XX/XXXX. Payment system automatically took another payment on XX/XX/XXXX for {$1200.00}. Phone call placed to USBANK to correct this, and I was offered a return check that would arrive in 2 weeks or that the additional payment be applied toward principal. I opted for the XX/XX/XXXX payment be applied toward principal on phone call on XX/XX/XXXX... I still see no reflection of this in the ledger as of today although an agent confirmed over the phone that it was done again properly today XX/XX/XXXX. I want all applicable interest returned to my account as a credit. I am being overcharged.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: CO
Zip: 80302
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-01-08
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-01-08
Issue: Unexpected or other fees
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I received a XXXX $ XXXX gift debit card for XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX I went to XXXX to activate the card. The Card Activity report at this website shows two pending XXXX Pre-Authorization transactions dated XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX {$1.00}, California and and XXXX, XXXX XXXX , Texas {$1.00}. I only opened the package the card came in today, XX/XX/XXXX. I tried contacting the number on the back of the card to report what looks like fraudulent charges already on a card that has just been issued. There is no response to calls to this number XXXX, I am put on hold until the call eventually disconnects. I called the XXXX national number XXXX and was told they could freeze the card but I would have to call the US Bank number XXXX to get a replacement issued.it seems to me Since there is no response at that number this looks a bit suspicious. I have had XXXX freeze the card. XXXX says they will notify the bank the card has been frozen. XXXX has my personal contact information. I will make another attempt to contact US Bank for a replacement card but have been told by two XXXX representatives to call off peak. When I asked what that actually means do they mean a daily, weekly or seasonal peak I am told they do not have that information. Apparently there is no recommended time to call about fraud and actually get a response. By the way, a quick web search of those two charges shows many people have complained about similar pre-charges against both new credit cards and bank accounts by those same two companies.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: NM
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-01-25
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-01-08
Issue: Getting a credit card
Subissue: Card opened as result of identity theft or fraud
Consumer Complaint: This account was paid and closed. According to FCRA laws this account meets the requirement to be removed from all 3 credit bureaus immediately due to age and fraudulent activity
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: CA
Zip: 94544
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-01-08
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-01-07
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: O or about XX/XX/2022, I looked at a home driving by in the city of XXXX XXXX of California. I was driving looking for homes as I waas already preapproved by XXXX XXXX for {$530000.00}. Thisn particulaer home attracted me as a single parent that it would qualifuy for a low income quota and I also met the income requirements as well as the credit having my preapproval with me. Upon calling I was told that I would have to aply for a loan from their own bank, USBANK and to go online and do it and then XXXX the pereapproval from them. Dont know if that is legal? Anyway I did that send in all the documents gave access to the bank info and for my credit. On XX/XX/2022 in the mail XXXX receievd a letter that my credit score was XXXX points loweer than a few days ago. How did that happen? I was only preapproved les than 30 days ago, I am on alerts with every credit card comnpnay that informs me of every move on my credit, access, points lowerd or go higher, applications, inquiries etc. I am also on alerts with XXXX XXXX abd didnt receive anything fron any of them yet USBANK says its XXXX points lower, and the agent XXXX returned the calls no response via email either just complete silence so as to deny me the opportunity to get the home as I am a single woman a XXXX woman XXXX XXXX always covered and speak with an accent. I need ot know how : 1 ) : the credit fell more than 100 poinyts instantaneously? 2 ) : The rson of the silenc? 3 ) : Othe roptions etc? and even with the llower score I still qualify for a loan but at a highr rate so whats hoding my application back?
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: CA
Zip: 92647
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-01-21
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-01-07
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: To Whom It May Concern : I have been involved in a protracted legal battle with US Bancorp for almost ten years, over their mishandling of multiple attempts to foreclose on a particular property, described below, and I believe I have been treated unfairly in large part due to their incompetence and unwillingness to allow me to communicate with anyone in a position of authority. I will do my best to describe what I consider to be an abuse of corporate power. My mother died on XX/XX/XXXX, with an outstanding US Bank loan. She had purchased a condominium in XXXX, in her own name and that of a revocable trust. In XXXX, she transferred the title into a Personal Residence Trust. I became the successor trustee for the Personal Residence Trust on XX/XX/XXXX. When my mother transferred the title to the condominium into the Personal Residence Trust, she retained personal responsibility for the loan. The trust has no assets other than the condo, which was a liability at the time of her death. The amount owed on the loan at that time was around {$610000.00}. The condo was appraised at {$530000.00} as of XX/XX/XXXX although I was advised by multiple real estate agents that it would never sell for that much. I spent the next 15 months calling US Bank almost every day. I was told repeatedly that the bank was only authorized to talk to my mother, who was deceased. Until XX/XX/XXXX I continued to pay the mortgage although the trust had no financial responsibility to do so. I consulted various professionals and an attorney finally suggested that the bank might speak with me if I stopped paying the mortgage, which I did in XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, the bank accelerated the loan. On XX/XX/XXXX, I sent them a letter telling them that my mother was deceased, that no probate or administration of her estate was planned, and that her estate was without funds to pay off the loan. I included a death certificate. In XX/XX/XXXX, the bank finally agreed to talk to me. Per their request for details, I sent a letter enclosing another copy of the death certificate along with the trust agreement and the document appointing me as successor trustee. In this letter, I informed US Bank that several of my siblings and I might be interested in purchasing the property or taking on the loan if it could be modified to an amount commensurate with the current value of the property. We felt that this might be the fastest route to a resolution. In XX/XX/XXXX, I attended the first of several Foreclosure Avoidance Mediations. After consulting with experts, it had become even more clear that purchasing the property would be the easiest solution to the problem. I put together an offer that considered the value of the condo at that time, the projected costs for the bank to foreclose and subsequently deal with the condo until it could be sold, as well as the decreased value of selling a bank-owned property. At that time, the condo was in good condition as far as I knew. Despite the federal requirement that someone with decision-making authority be present at the mediation, no one was. The attorney representing US Bank thought my offer was reasonable and we agreed to meet again in a month after she presented it to her client. At the follow up meeting I was told that the bank did not have a mechanism for accepting an offer from me because I was not the borrower. I accepted that decision and left the meeting thinking that foreclosure would proceed easily. I asked the attorney if there was any way to speed things along and was told that the bank needed to go through the entire process, which would probably take between nine and twelve months. What followed was a series of long delays. US Bank first attempted to foreclose in late summer XXXX, erroneously naming me, in my personal capacity, on the lawsuit, forcing me to hire an attorney. I believe that error was corrected but the bank then failed to prosecute the case in a timely fashion and the court dismissed everyone except for me, in my capacity as trustee, because the initial error had required me to file a response. In XX/XX/XXXX toxic mold was discovered in the condo, related to construction defects that had been known to the HOA and the previous owner but never disclosed to my mother. I had been staying in the condo up to that point, so that I could afford to pay the HOA dues, but I was forced to move out due to the health hazard. The first foreclosure trial took place in XX/XX/XXXX. Before the trial, my attorney asked the bank to put the case in abatement because of the mold issues and because the case was not ready for trial as no proper party was named. He also asked if the bank would be willing to attend a global mediation with the HOA to resolve all the issues at once. The bank declined both requests and lost the case at trial. The Judge explained in her decision that the bank had not listed anyone who owed them money and that they needed to open probate. My attorney attempted to reach the US bank attorney who had been handling the case up to that point to work out the terms. She did not respond to multiple emails and phone calls. The court issued a supplemental judgement, awarding attorney fees and costs to me, on XX/XX/XXXX. Despite many requests for payment and filing a writ of execution, the bank did not pay in a timely fashion. The HOA refused to fix the exterior defects that were causing water intrusion and mold and I was forced to file a lawsuit against them. It took two years to reach a settlement. In XX/XX/XXXX, a refrigerator leak resulted in additional water damage to the kitchen and an adjacent closet. This was reported to US Bank, but they never followed up. I finally paid for remediation, which included demolition of the kitchen and closet, when I started to fear that the damage might otherwise become irreversible. With the outcome of the unit still under dispute, it has not been in my interest to pay for reconstruction and the unit remains uninhabitable. During remediation of the kitchen damage, the contractor noted other areas concerning for water intrusion and another mold inspection was performed. Contractors have also pointed out areas of exterior wet and dry rot while performing estimates. The bank, as well as the HOA, were made aware of these issues and chose to ignore them. Another Foreclosure Avoidance mediation hearing was under discussion starting in late XXXX. It was my understanding that the bank was required to attend and obtain a certificate but that I was not. However, I had never been able to talk to a bank representative and thought it might be my only opportunity. At the first meeting of this second foreclosure avoidance mediation, held in XX/XX/XXXX, a new bank attorney arrived with no history of the condo whatsoever. He had not been told that the bank had already lost one foreclosure lawsuit or anything about the current condition of the condo. I appeared with an attorney who pointed out that I was the only creditor in the room since I had no personal responsibility for my mothers loan, but at that time the bank owed me a substantial amount of money in attorney fees. Again, there was no US bank representative present at the mediation, despite federal requirements. I made an offer to purchase the loan for the current value of the condominium. It was decided that, because of the complexities of the case, negotiations should proceed outside of the mediation environment. I requested a follow up meeting because I was afraid it would otherwise drag on forever. One was scheduled for a couple of months later but US Bank kept requesting delays and it didnt take place until XX/XX/XXXX. As discussed in the mediation, I presented a formal offer to purchase the loan, considering that the housing market had changed but that the condo was no longer habitable. Although the terms had been discussed at the mediation, and the US Bank attorney felt they were reasonable, soon after the mediation US Bank appointed a different attorney for the interim. We never received a response and did not see the attorney who had been present at the XX/XX/XXXX hearing again until the follow up hearing in XX/XX/XXXX. He had been told nothing of what had gone on in the meantime, no bank representative with decision-making authority was present, and the meeting was a waste of time. During late XXXX and XXXX, we attempted to negotiate some type of settlement with the bank and asked them to participate in a private mediation. To each overture, the bank attorney simply said that hed pass the request on to his client and nothing more was heard. In response to my requests for payment of the supplemental judgement awarded in XX/XX/XXXX, this same attorney asked me, at least twice, to calculate the amount owing, with interest, as of a particular date. I sent him the information and received no response. On XX/XX/XXXX, the XXXX XXXX sheriffs office collected the judgement at a local US Bank branch and the funds were disbursed to me several months later. In XX/XX/XXXX, the bank filed a new lawsuit, seeking a declaration that it was entitled to foreclose on the note and deed of trust, and that it could proceed under a lost note. Again, they failed to name their sole borrower as a defendant. We pointed this out, but the bank moved for summary judgment anyway. We filed a cross motion and the action was dismissed on XX/XX/XXXX, for failure to name the real party in interest. I was awarded attorney fees and an enhanced prevailing party fee for having to defend the action. Two months later, more than eight years after my mothers death, and four years after the judge in their first failed foreclosure lawsuit told them in no uncertain terms that they needed to do it, the bank opened probate. The initial petition sought to appoint a professional fiduciary to serve as personal representative of the estate, even though my mothers will specified that one of her children should serve in that capacity. When this was pointed out to them, they filed an amended petition, but the accompanying order still listed the professional fiduciary as personal representative. I objected but before the hearing could be held, the court dismissed the second petition for other technical deficiencies, including, I believe, the wrong address for the court. A third petition was filed, and I was appointed personal representative on XX/XX/XXXX, eight months after the bank first filed for probate. In the meantime, the bank ignored our requests for payment of the judgement associated with the dismissal of the motion for summary judgement in XX/XX/XXXX, until they hired a new law firm in XX/XX/XXXX. I believe this was the banks seventh set of attorneys and the first ones who seem to have learned from the mistakes of their predecessors. However, although they have more effectively navigated the complex legal process, they have shown no willingness to consider the effect the previous error-filled years have had on the condition of and actual value of the condo when compared with the purported payoff amount. I completed all the requirements to become the personal representative by early XX/XX/XXXX, although no probate hearings were ever held. Instead, the bank sought to proceed by judicial foreclosure and filed a Rule 21 Motion to Strike which was heard on XX/XX/XXXX. The bank was allowed to proceed with foreclosure without resolving the probate issue although some other elements of their motion were denied. In XX/XX/XXXX the bank agreed to attend a private mediation, something Id been hoping to do for years. The attorneys were the only bank representatives present at the mediation, again no one with decision making authority appeared, and they did not seem to take the conference seriously. I felt that they acted disrespectfully toward the mediator, a retired judge, and generally seemed to mock the proceeding. When confronted with their blatant unwillingness to work towards negotiating a settlement, they responded with a statement implying that their presence was all the effort required from them. The mediator proposed a settlement which I accepted. He also requested that he be allowed to speak directly with someone at US Bank. That request was ignored and I heard nothing more about it. In XX/XX/XXXX, the bank filed a Motion for Summary Judgement which was heard on XX/XX/XXXX and granted in part. Because the court found that there were genuine questions of fact as to the amount owing on the loan and whether certain charges were reasonable, the case went to trial on XX/XX/XXXX. Prior to the trial, I made another good faith offer after the attorney stated that her client was willing to consider an offer from me. I sent the offer, along with a timeline of the history, through my attorney on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX pm PST. The local attorney for US bank responded just over an hour later with a cryptic message citing the current pay off amount as a counteroffer. I was willing to negotiate my offer, but the timing of the response suggested that the attorney had not taken the time to seriously consider it. Since the banks headquarters are in the central time zone, they would have been closed at the time my offer was sent, confirming my long-term suspicion that my offers were not being presented to anyone at the bank. On XX/XX/XXXX, the court ruled that Because of plaintiffs repeated failures to properly file and pursue this foreclosure action, plaintiff shall not be entitled to claim interest on the periods between XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, between XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, and between XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX. The payoff amount on that day was {$980000.00}, almost {$360000.00} more than the principal balance of XXXX. He did not reduce the amount of other bank charges that occurred during that time, totaling around {$180000.00}, which were entirely related to the banks failure to properly prosecute the case. The judge ordered counsel for plaintiff to submit a form of judgment. The attorneys original calculation was approximately {$10000.00} off, in the banks favor. Recalculated correctly, the ruling knocked off around {$70000.00} leaving a payoff balance of over {$910000.00} for an uninhabitable condominium which was most recently appraised at {$63000.00}, on XX/XX/XXXX, due to multiple issues which have only worsened since that time. I commissioned the XXXX appraisal after an appraiser hired by the bank in XXXX stated that there were no defects associated with the unit even though he included photos of the torn-out kitchen, hallway, bedroom flooring, and breached sliding glass doors in his report. For my part, I made a point to hire an appraiser who had previously appraised the unit for US Bank in XXXX, assuming it was someone they trusted. Its important to note that the XXXX appraisal was performed while the bank was supposedly considering my offer at that time, although they never followed up on that. In fact, all these appraisals were performed based on the implication that the bank was willing to negotiate a deal with me. I have received estimates to repair the condominium that have ranged from around {$170000.00} up to {$520000.00} depending on the level of repairs. The cost of repairs, and the length of time it would take to accomplish them, have gone up considerably over the years especially in the past six months due to supply chain difficulties and shortages. According to real estate agents and comparing sales of other units in the condominium complex, the lower end repairs might result in a sales price of around {$850000.00}. The higher end repairs could conceivably result in a sales price of {$1.00} million. A neighbor, who had at one time expressed interest in purchasing the unit, recently stated that he would not pay more than {$500000.00} since repairs and updates would run into the hundreds of thousands. All of this is to say that, regardless of the recent court ruling, the bank will almost certainly not find a buyer at auction for anywhere near {$910000.00}, let alone over {$980000.00} which was their most recent counteroffer to me. Not only will they be selling an uninhabitable, bank owned property, with a history of mold, and disclosure requirements that they will have no knowledge about, US Bank will also have extensive holding costs and legal expenses in the interim. The HOA dues of $ XXXX and property taxes of $ XXXX could reduce their buyers pool by as much as 50 % since it will preclude half the potential buyers from obtaining conventional financing. The continued presence of toxic mold in the HVAC system from the incident in XXXX, a new mold problem under the existing kitchen sink ( despite the water being turned off at the main ) and the fact that most of the kitchen as well as the bedroom flooring had to be torn out due to yet another mold problem, will be further barriers to conventional financing. In addition, the unit has sole responsibility for a deck that it does not own but must maintain. The drainage on the deck is faulty and it is impossible to keep water from ponding. The HOA has refused to repair it in the past, even though it is a limited common element. There is a long history of water intrusion issues in the entire complex and there is currently wet rot and dry rot involving the exterior siding of this condo. The sliding glass doors are breached and need to be replaced. The HOA board is aware of these issues but have made no move to correct the defects that caused them. Although I have undertaken demolition and remediation to stem the most destructive mold damage, there are additional areas of potential concern, noted in the mold report attached to this complaint. A buyer faces the risk that these issues cant be solved unless the HOA first repairs common elements, something that has proven to be an uphill battle in the past. A new owner could undertake extensive repairs only to have the water intrusion continue because the association has not solved the underlying problems. The extent of the problems is unknown, and a rational buyer wouldnt buy the unit at all or would want compensation for not being able to live in it until repairs were negotiated and performed, or for potentially having to repair it twice. Alternatively, the bank could fight these battles with the HOA prior to selling the unit and further increase its own costs. Yet according to their attorneys, US Bank has refused to entertain my most recent cash offer of {$64000.00}, which I was open to negotiate further, and they refused to respond to the mediators proposed resolution which would have had me pay the bank {$610000.00} in XX/XX/XXXX and saved them tens of thousands of dollars for the outstanding HOA lien, property taxes, and legal fees that they have subsequently paid. I cant help but feel that, either a suitable representative at the bank has never been consulted about this matter or that there is some form of discrimination occurring here. I find the fact that a bank, purportedly the ultimate authority in numerical accuracy, could not even calculate a simple mathematical formula to determine the amount of interest precluded by the judge in the most recent hearing, highly suspicious for the latter. Certainly, there are actuaries at the bank capable of not making a {$10000.00} mistake. That error seems more likely to have originated with an attorney who did not consult their client. I have never disputed that my mother took out a loan from US Bank and held a mortgage with them at the time of her death in XXXX. In fact, I diligently tried to give the condominium to the bank in the first two years after her death. They made it exceedingly hard for me to even reach them, let alone to negotiate whatever necessary transfer of title would have been required at that time. They never offered a cash for keys or deed in lieu option to me, possibilities that I didnt even know existed, and in fact denied that anything of that nature was possible when I asked their first attorney at the foreclosure avoidance mediation in XX/XX/XXXX if there could be a quick and simple resolution. I never learned those terms until the most recent bank attorney took over a little over a year ago by which time it no longer seemed simple or advantageous. For almost a decade, I have been trying to navigate a treacherous line between performing my fiduciary responsibility to an insolvent trust and my own priorities. Ive been stuck taking care of a condominium that I do not own and havent been able to live in or rent out since I became aware of the water intrusion and mold issues in XXXX. To make it livable, I would have had to pay for repairs out of my own pocket, not knowing if the bank would foreclose before I had an opportunity to recoup those expenditures. If I had known that it would take six more years for the bank to successfully foreclose, that investment would have been worth it. But I would never have predicted this outcome. If the bank had foreclosed quickly, they would have been the only beneficiary of any improvements I paid for. I asked one of their lawyers if the bank would be willing to reimburse me if that occurred and he never responded. As it is, I have had considerable out of pocket expenses stemming from my position as trustee of a trust that has no assets other than the condo. These include utilities, water damage and mold repair/remediation/demolition, multiple mold inspections and testing, appraisals, foreclosure avoidance and private mediation fees, legal expenses, plumbing repairs, condo insurance, contractor estimates, and probate expenses which turned out to be for naught. I have dealt with the occasional crisis and overall have spent close to {$100000.00} that has not been reimbursed. Its been stressful and costly and from my perspective has served to benefit no one except, perhaps, the bank who did not have to care for the place during the years when its value was markedly reduced by the financial crisis they contributed to causing. My sense is that US Bank has probably already made a profit from this propertys loss of value in the form of government bailouts, while that same loss of value was exceedingly costly for me and kept me from selling the condo. The bank has dragged their feet at every turn and refused to negotiate with me in good faith, all the while adding to what they claim to be owed at an exponential rate so that their payoff amount now borders on the ridiculous and bears no resemblance to the actual value of the property. I have done nothing to cause these delays, responding promptly and to the best of my ability to whatever they requested from me. If there was a situation in which I could have brought this to a close earlier, while still performing the duties of trustee, it was never clear to me, and the bank never brought such an offer to the table. Instead, they hired one set of attorneys after another, each apparently meant to correct the errors of previous counsel, only to have those mistakes repeated. They have wasted my time and the courts time, as well as their own. I have repeatedly been told that this probably all stemmed from negligence, that this property file inadvertently kept ending up at the bottom of a pile. My attorneys have always believed that the bank would eventually come to their senses and make a deal with me rather than continue to make the very choices that cost them more money. Isnt it the nature of a bank to put itself into the most profitable position? And yet, in this case, US Bank repeatedly chooses what appears to be the opposite and its difficult for me to believe there hasnt been some ulterior motive. Will they end up with the property and a big tax write off in addition to the bail out money they might have already received? Would it be fair of them to cost me a large amount of money, and ten years of my life, in order to do so? Or are they willing to lose money simply to discriminate against me for unknown reasons? None of it makes sense. I understand that this case has been fully litigated and that filing a complaint at this late date might be seen as sour grapes. I disagree. The fact that it was litigated for eight years was entirely due to bank errors and omissions and I believe that to be the most generous explanation. I wish that I had known about your agency 8 years ago, but its only recently been brought to my attention. I also recently discovered an email address for the CEO of US Bank and sent an email which elicited a response from the executive communications division on XX/XX/XXXX XXXX. I had been ready to submit this complaint at that time but held off in the hopes the bank would follow up with me. As of this date, they have not done so. In summary, my case with U.S. Bank has dragged on for nearly ten years and thru seven sets of bank attorneys. The condo has been severely damaged during the delays which has cost me a great deal of money. I have been sued personally by the bank, which was traumatic even though they lost, and have had a decade of legal expenses. During all this time the bank has never empowered anyone to negotiate a resolution or attempted in good faith to conclude a deal. I respectfully ask for your help. Since the court filings are public record, I am not attaching all of them to this complaint but will be happy to provide them if needed. Other relevant documents are attached. Please note that I have only included a few representative exchanges between myself and US Bancorp. If needed, I can supply copies of all communications between us. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely. *I have uploaded an unredacted copy of this narrative, which has superscripts to direct the reader to the appropriate document as the story unfolds, along with the supporting documents.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: OR
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-01-07
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-01-07
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: XX/XX/XXXX : Talked to XXXX ( ID : XXXX ), XXXX Account has not been looked at even after escalation. XXXX sent out a follow up email. Original trial plan payment was {$3600.00}. The new trial amount is {$3800.00} which is not acceptable and is {$160.00} higher and is setting us back by 3 months on a mistake US bank made and not with us as borrower. Per XXXX, need to call back next week for status update. This is about the 10th calls I made to US bank within a 3 months time frame with wait time over 60 minutes XX/XX/XXXX : Talked to XXXX ( ID : XXXX ), XXXX Communicated that we do not accept to start the process again under the 2nd trial plan as it was not our mistake. XXXX sent an email with screenshots to escalate the account requesting to keep the first trial plan. XXXX confirmed it was not a payment issue as other representatives have communicated ( they told us these payments were misapplied but they never fixed it on their end despite multiple calls from us to correct ). First trial plan termination issue was because US bank made the mistake of termination the program due to missing paperwork. However, we submitted the required paperwork in time ( on XX/XX/XXXX ) while the deadline was XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX confirmed receipt which showed XX/XX/XXXX and included screenshot to escalation team ). XXXX informed to call back after the Holidays for status update if they dont give us a call back. Talked to XXXX ( ID : XXXX ) First trial plan was canceled due to unknown reason ( clarified with XXXX above as due to US bank making a mistake of not seeing the timely submitted paperwork ). Requested paperwork was submitted by borrowers on time and prior to deadline date of XX/XX/XXXX. Document was uploaded via US bank online portal and also to their intake email at XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX reactivated the account under a new trial plan as she told me that was my only option beside the loan add back of overdue amount ( not acceptable at this point ). New trial payments due XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ( do not pay early, only pay within the month and by calling in the mortgage assistance program team ). Instructed us to not make any payment until XX/XX/XXXX. This is not acceptable as it was not borrower 's fault. Will be calling back to speak to another US Bank agent. XX/XX/XXXX : Talked to XXXX ID : XXXX Called multiple times before this already. Representative is escalating to the manager for an extension on required paperwork beyond XX/XX/XXXX. Request for new deed was received via mail a few days before XXXX XXXX. The time is too short as the Recorders Office does not take walk-ins, only by appointment and by mail. The next appointment is not until XX/XX/XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX appointment is booked. Waiting to hear back if the manager will approve the extension to submit a recorded document transfer the grant deed back to under borrowers ( from family living trust ). Currently applying for Streamline Modification. Request for Mortgage Assistance ( RMA ) not needed - planning to submit anyway to make sure. Account is currently on hold. When sending documents please add Last Name and acct number. Discussed with XXXX, ok to send in the final new notarized deed ( before recording ) and explain the situation via mail to XXXX XXXX
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: CA
Zip: 95138
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-01-07
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-01-07
Issue: Other features, terms, or problems
Subissue: Other problem
Consumer Complaint: Elain Financial Services pursuant to section 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act Elain Financial Services has violated the FCRA requirements by not putting the required notice of dispute on my credit report will this account is being disputed as required. Under section 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) Elain Financial Services is required to notify the credit reporting agencies that this account is being disputed when I dispute this account. This is a very serious violation of the FCRA requirements by Elain Financial Services. I have disputed the late payment for XXXX multiple times over the past serval months with Elain Financial Services and the credit bureau and the required notice of dispute has never been placed or reported in the comments section of this dispute account. I am once again providing multiple copies of resent credit reports that clearly dont show the required notice of dispute in the comments section of any report. I am also attaching a copy of section 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) of the FCRA for Elain Financial Services review. I have previously disputed the violations of no notice of dispute with Elain Financial Services in XXXX of XXXX with no response. Elain Financial Services will give the generic response that they can review or see the proof documentation attached. How can Elain Financial Services verify any dispute if that cant review or see supporting proof documentation.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: MA
Zip: 02301
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-01-21
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A