Complaint Review: KEVIN BIM Self-employed-lending.com No-docs-expert.com Statedloans.com - Internet

Violating a consumer's right to rescission is a serious offense. In addition to the Federal violations detailed above, the California Department of Real Estate can impose penalties for violations that include a fine of up to $5,000 and/or imprisonment for up to one year. To protect and enforce my rights, I retained legal counsel to represent me. My attorney corresponded with KEVIN BIM, a salesperson representing HOUSING REINVESTMENT INC. dba LANDVEST DEVELOPMENT REALTY, and GARY SINARD, designated officer for HOUSING REINVESTMENT INC., via the U.S. postal service and email regarding their breach of fiduciary responsibility and violation of Federal statutes, but they both failed to respond. Subsequently, a civil lawsuit is being prepared against them seeking damages in excess of $1.1 million.

KEVIN BIM has honored his word and paid the $987 he promised. The refund issue is satisfactorily concluded.

KEVIN BIM claims that All areas of real estate law and ethics have been complied with but that's not true, as the legal violations outlined above indicate. The Truth In Lending Act (TILA) and the Right of Rescission requires Lenders to deliver TWO COPIES of the notice of the right to rescind and ONE COPY of the disclosure statement to each consumer entitled to rescind. These copies were NOT provided to me until AFTER the loan had already been funded! Since the 3-day rescission period legally began only after I received TWO COPIES of my Right to Rescission and the loan had already been funded by then, I was essentially deprived of my Right to Rescission. No matter which way you slice it, THE LAW WAS BROKEN!

KEVIN BIM claims that All areas of real estate law and ethics have been complied with but that's not true, as the legal violations outlined above indicate. The Truth In Lending Act (TILA) and the Right of Rescission requires Lenders to deliver TWO COPIES of the notice of the right to rescind and ONE COPY of the disclosure statement to each consumer entitled to rescind. These copies were NOT provided to me until AFTER the loan had already been funded! Since the 3-day rescission period legally began only after I received TWO COPIES of my Right to Rescission and the loan had already been funded by then, I was essentially deprived of my Right to Rescission. No matter which way you slice it, THE LAW WAS BROKEN!

KEVIN BIM claims that All areas of real estate law and ethics have been complied with but that's not true, as the legal violations outlined above indicate. The Truth In Lending Act (TILA) and the Right of Rescission requires Lenders to deliver TWO COPIES of the notice of the right to rescind and ONE COPY of the disclosure statement to each consumer entitled to rescind. These copies were NOT provided to me until AFTER the loan had already been funded! Since the 3-day rescission period legally began only after I received TWO COPIES of my Right to Rescission and the loan had already been funded by then, I was essentially deprived of my Right to Rescission. No matter which way you slice it, THE LAW WAS BROKEN!

KEVIN BIM claims that All areas of real estate law and ethics have been complied with but that's not true, as the legal violations outlined above indicate. The Truth In Lending Act (TILA) and the Right of Rescission requires Lenders to deliver TWO COPIES of the notice of the right to rescind and ONE COPY of the disclosure statement to each consumer entitled to rescind. These copies were NOT provided to me until AFTER the loan had already been funded! Since the 3-day rescission period legally began only after I received TWO COPIES of my Right to Rescission and the loan had already been funded by then, I was essentially deprived of my Right to Rescission. No matter which way you slice it, THE LAW WAS BROKEN!

Failure to give proper rescission notice (two copies of the right to rescind to each consumer entitled to rescind) extends the right to rescind to three years.

Failing to deliver the required notice of the right to rescind consumer credit transactions in which security interests are or will be retained or acquired in consumers' principal dwellings, is in violation of Section 125(a) of TILA, 15 U.S.C. 1635(a), and Section 226.23(b) of Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. 226.23(b). Failing to deliver two copies of the required notice of the right to rescind to each consumer entitled to rescind, is in violation of Section 125(a) of TILA, 15 U.S.C. 1635(a), and Sections 226.17(d) and 226.23(b) of Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. 226.17(d) and 226.23(b). Disbursing money before the TILA rescission period has expired, is in violation of Section 125 of TILA, 15 U.S.C. 1635, and Section 226.23(c) of Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. 226.23(c). Engaging in any of the practices described above, thereby depriving consumers of the right to rescind, is in violation of Section 125(a) of TILA, 15 U.S.C. 1635(a), and Section 226.23(a) of Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. 226.23(a). ftc.gov/os/1999/07/capmortcom.htm

KEVIN BIM claims that All areas of real estate law and ethics have been complied with but he is incorrect. The Truth In Lending Act (TILA) and the Right of Rescission requires Lenders to deliver TWO COPIES of the notice of the right to rescind and ONE COPY of the disclosure statement to each consumer entitled to rescind. http://www.kramerslaw.com/real_estate_statutes.htm These copies were NOT provided to me until AFTER the loan had already been funded! Furthermore, KEVIN BIM's email to me dated 6/16/2006 7:49:28 PM states you should have had them (document copies) at signing.

My statements are not false or slanderous and written documentation is available to verify the following: 1) My loan amount was for $417k and not a penny more. KEVIN BIM is lying when he says otherwise. 2) KEVIN BIM's email to me dated 6/8/2006 8:02:33 PM specifically states escrow and title fees are approximately $900 more than estimated. This is the first I've heard anything about 2/10 of a percent as an explanation for the overcharges. 3) KEVIN BIM's email to me dated 6/9/2006 10:22:43 AM compares the Title and Escrow fees on the Estimated Closing Statement with the Title and Escrow fees on the Good Faith Estimate and by his own words indicates 2342 vs. 1455 = 887 diff. Later in the document I objected to a $100 charge for emails, hence the $987 total he offered to refund to me. 4) My Good Faith Estimate was dated May 10th and it reflected FIVE days of pre-paid interest to the new lender. At the Closing I was made aware that pre-paid interest to the new lender is paid to the 1st of the month. It was only after Closing that I realized the Good Faith Estimate had been low-balled because it SHOULD HAVE reflected TWENTY-TWO days of pre-paid interest (May 10 through May 31) instead of just FIVE days. 5) My Estimated Closing Statement reflects that I paid $70 in FedEx charges and $150 for a notary to come to my home for the Closing so this 2/10 of a percent is something KEVIN BIM is making up out of thin air as some type of feeble excuse for failing to honor his word. 6) KEVIN BIM's email to me dated 6/28/2006 1:06:48 PM states I told you I would get you the money and I will. I suspect KEVIN BIM is lying to me yet again. Mr. BIM, you are making a fool of yourself. If you had acted responsibly and responded in a timely and adult fashion to my countless attempts to resolve this matter and if you had the character and integrity to honor your word, none of this would have been necessary!

Ms. Diana Kirkpatrick's statements are false and slanderous. Ms. Kirkpatrick was provided with preliminary disclosures, including a good faith estimate with outlined estimated fees. She signed all the documents with any/all questions answered. What Ms. Kirkpatrick failed to mention in her report was that her "$987" overcharge is 2/10 of a percent, since her loan was in excess of $417,000. That is "why" it is called a "good faith estimate." Ms. Kirkpatrick had the option of rescinding her contract within the 3 period of time, which she did not. Had she contacted the escrow company, the lender, or myself to rescind her contract it would have been rescinded. It wasn't until after the loan was funded that Ms. Kirkpatrick made her request for the additional $987 credit. Please read on. 1st paragraph-prepaid interest lowballed-had we not have had to go to the State of CA for a non-disclosed tax lien subordination this loan would have closed the month prior to June. Had that not been Ms Kirkpatrick would have only had to pay prepaid interest of a few days. Since Ms. Kirkpatrick did not initially disclose that she had a tax lien the loan had to fund into the new month which required more prepaid interest. What Ms. Kirkpatrick failed to mention was that her 1st loan payment now would not be due for an additional month. Who's responsible for their own interest on monies owed? Hmm. 2nd paragraph-errant doc order went in that reflected an increase in broker fees, yes, mitake. broker credit was provided immediately, day of signing! thanks for admitting that, Ms Kirkpatrick. So, you want to bundle my services with those of an independent escrow company? Escrow fees being higher-did you tell us that escrow would have to submit 2 overnight Fed Ex packages to Sacramento? Did you tell us that you needed a notary to come to your house because you couldn't leave it? Do those people just work for you for free? Please keep in mind 2/10 of a percent overage! paragraph 3-Ms. Kirkpatrick entered into and finished the contract without duress. All areas of real estate law and ethics have been complied with. She had a HUD at closing(we have the documents dated and signed), and it is a "courteousy", not a law, to deliver a copy package of loan documents within a reasonable period of time. All of my clients receive disclosures within the 3 day window of time from credit being pulled, in compliance with RESPA, HUD, and DRE. Ms. Kirkpatrick is one of those clients. paragraph 4-should I give the courteousy to this? "I've concluded that you're either on heavy prescription meds or you have a substance abuse problem because your brain is adled beyond belief!","Do you have reading comprehension problems","Your idiocy,". You were fairly charged for your services, Ms. Kirkpatrick. You were "asked"(read the email again) if you would be happy if the broker reimbursed you the overage from "title and escrow" charges. You continued to vent at your situation by being rude to the person that was being (in your words) "innocent" in trying to repair the situation. paragraph 5-again, all DRE, HUD, and RESPA laws and ethics have been complied with. In conclusion, are there any other ripoff reports filed against my company and myself, on this website or any other? Why is this the very first complaint, Ms. Kirkpatrick? With all sincerity and truth, Kevin 714-743-7516