Complaint Review: Ultra Mortgage LLC

I had a similar experience with different salesperson.  I took them to court and won!!  It is just the way they operate as they know you cannot do anything a week from closing.  Suggest going directly to a bank, their regulation are a lot tougher.

Good Luck.

After reading this coment from the individual in De, I needed to respond with my story of a great experience with Scott McNamee at Ultra mortgage.

I have been involved in many real estate transactions in my lifetime and have encountered both superior as well as very poor service. In dealing with Scott, I was very impressed from the initial conversation and this continued throughout the process. I am always leary of the fast talking, promise everything type of loan originators. In speaking with Scott, he was very polite, answered my questions and did not push me into any particular program. He did explain several options available and both the pros and cons of each. At the start of my process, Scott Provided me with an estimate of the settlement fees I would encounter and he explained the steps that would occur throughout the transaction.

Because I have been through many mortgage transactions over the years, I did expect the worst and was prepared for higher fees to be charged at the closing. I was pleasantly surprised to find my closing statement actually reflecting a lower total cost than originally quoted.

I was treated exceptionally well and felt Scott along with his processor were very professional and this combined for a very smooth and actually easy process.

I am looking to purchase an investment property in the near future and have already contacted Scott for a pre approval.

Sincerely,

Carol H

I, Scott McNamee am writing in response to a claim by a previous client of mine regarding their dissatisfaction with my service.

I disagree strongly with all of the harsh comments and innuendos in the report for the reasons below:

As far as being dishonest, I as well as Ultra Mortgage had never lied, mislead or directed the borrower in a way that would be construed as deceptive. The client is claiming that Ultra Mortgage did not honor the interest rate that was locked in. In this particular case the interest rate was locked and an agreement had been signed by Ultra and the client. The rate was to be valid for a period of 30 days, which is a sufficient time for this particular transaction. During the refinance process we were made aware that one of the clients two mortgages had not been recorded after his previous transaction. The new investor on his refinance requires that all liens being paid off with the new funds must have been recorded. Due to the event of this circumstance, we as well as the client had to scramble to obtain a copy of the Note from the un recorded transaction and have this brought to the court for recording.

The client did assist in this matter and did have the document recorded; however due to the delay in this process, the interest rate was approaching the expiration date. With the holiday season upon us and the delay in obtaining the needed documents, the interest rate did exceed the 30 day lock in period and had now become a floating rate.

The client was now facing a situation where the interest rate market had increased by .250%.

Ultra mortgage did try to accomodate the client in every manner posssible and in order to keep the rate close to the initial agreement, Ultra relinquished a portion of the Yield Spread paid by the investor in order to reduce the clients rate by .125%.

Due to this unforseen circumstance caused by the borrowers current lender, my client did end up paying a .125% higher rate than originally thought. Ultra had no responsibility in the delay of this transaction and actually to expedite the process I had driven to the clients home in Delaware from my NJ office in order to gather the initail documents from said client. This was also done in order to submit the documents to the investor by the required deadline.

In all of our loan transactions, unless requested by the borrower, Ultra will order the requested pay offs for the current loans in order to have exact figures for our investors. In this case, the client had his Attorney order the pay off figures as well, and feels we did not communicate with him and he ended up with an additional $50 cost for the pay offs. ( this was refunded to the client after closing ) This was his biggest claim of not keeping him informed of the process. It is actually the other way around, when he should of made Ultra aware of his Attorney requesting pay offs.

The clients claim of the fees being changed is also very disheartning. The client was issued an initial Good Faith Estimate where the appraisal cost was stated as $350, this was an amount that Ultra used based on previous appraisals in the clients area. However, due to recent appraisal guidelines, Ultra is not able to order the appraisal and the appraiser is chosen by the investor. In this case the appraiser that was chosen had a charge of $407. Again, this is a situation where the client feels he was misled.

In the end, the borrower must have felt the transaction was to his benefit due to the fact he signed the closing documents with his Attorney present and also had the 3 day period to review the final documents. Ultra mortgage did credit the client any fees that he disbuted even though they were all 3rd party fees.

I have been a mortgage loan officer for over 15 years and have never had a complaint, infraction, or disciplinary action taken against me and have been issued licensing in all the states I perform my services.

I feel this was an isolated incident and Ultra mortgage acted in good faith to remedy any concerns the borrower had.