Federal Home Loan Morgage Corporation

Mr. cooper's unfair practice Act and violation of FHA Guideline.
Once I paid 78% of my home mortgage, I have contacted Mr. Cooper Home Loan and requested to process the removal of my PMI (mortgage insurance interest) which is close to additional $100.00 monthly . As of today, March 11, 2020, I have paid 81% of the home mortgage. I have contacted Mr. Cooper over 4 months ago and they promise to remove it, however as of today March 11, 2020, nothing has happened. The representative of Mr. Cooper told me today that, "It is not automatically removed, it is subject to approval from the Mr. Cooper." I enter in an agreement and signed the mortgage contract that upon reaching and paid the 78% of the mortgage value, Mr. Cooper will remove the PMI.

Fraudulent reevaluation of property. Also going against the mortgage agreement to remove the PMI at 80% of home value.
In July of 2019 we started the process to have our PMI removed. Bank of America told us we have to send them $105 to have an evaluation done. We had the appraisal process started by an individual coming to our residence to take pictures of our property. We spoke to no other individual and 10 days later received a fraudulent appraisal report. On this evaluation, signed Carol Pizzi Agent License # XXXXXXX, our house was appraised at 370,000. The appraisal company that was used was Freddie Mac. The appraisal stated we had a leaky roof, our HVAC wasn't working, we had termite damage, and that no updates were done. Freddie Mac signed off on this appraisal and none of those reported findings were true. Due to this evaluation BOA declined our PMI removal before we had the chance to speak to anyone from BOA or Freddie Mac. We then appealed the appraisal with BOA. BOA stated someone from Freddie Mac would be reaching out to us for a new evaluation. We sent receipts and other documents to BOA proving that what was documented by Freddie Mac was indeed false. We then received a new home evaluation of 400,000. We had yet to talk to anyone from Freddie Mac. Since our house was appraised at 400,000 we would need to have paid at least XXXXXX of our principal. In fact our principal balance is 315,780. Which is below the 80% threshold. We have been back and forth with BOA since the new appraisal, asking for our PMI to be removed. BOA was denying our request because we needed to meet a 75% threshold. We explained to them that our mortgage contract stated that we needed to meet a 80% threshold. We explained to BOA there was an error on their end. They then stated to us that they keep on getting denied by the mortgage investor. They then informed us that the mortgage investor was also Freddie Mac. So not only has Freddie Mac signed a fraudulent appraisal but now Freddie Mac is now contradicting our amortization schedule signed at our mortgage closing three years ago. On that mortgage document it states that our PMI will be canceled on January 1, 2022. Further proof that its 80% is that on our amortization schedule it shows (and this is stated on our closing documents) that our last PMI payment will be January of 2022. If you do the math January of 2022 we would hit an 80% threshold of our principal. I spoke with Maria from Freddie Mac today and she stated that Freddie Mac's policy is that we have to hit a 75% threshold since we had the loan for only 3 years. This is stated NO WHERE in our closing documents. The only thing that is stated in our closing documents is that our PMI will be cancelled on January 1, 2022. (Which would be when we hit our 20%) I feel that this is a crime, illegal, and against the consumer fraud act. Freddie Mac should be held accountable. I will be filing a complaint to the state and federal level.

Concealment and non disclosure of home deficiencies.
Complainant purchased a residential property from Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) on March 8, 2017. The terms of sale included, among other things, that said sale would be "as is" with no implied or expressed warranties. An exception to such sale occurs when the seller, his agent, or employee conceals material defects in the property.
Neither the complainant nor a licensed property inspector had observed certain property defects prior to closing. The seller, Freddie Mac, had carpeted over the 2nd floor, which concealed the substrate, wood flooring, beneath the carpet. Furthermore, Freddie Mac, had had the interior painted. The interior paint chalks, and in so doing, damages personal property which comes into contact with a painted surface.
While the sale was made "as is", concealing these defects created a non-level playing field in favor of the seller. Had the seller not concealed these deficiencies, the complainant would have reduced his offer by $5000.00 to allow for the correction. Or the complainant would have asked Freddie Mac to void the sale and return the earnest money deposit, plus fees for inspection services.
Complainant has made numerous demands on the seller for reimbursement. Freddie Mac has denied said request claiming that the sale was "as is", and as such, they have no obligation in this regard.
There is a distinction between the term of sale, "as is", and the seller's direct efforts to hid a material defect in a home. Case law provides clear and compelling decisions that, in the event of litigation, *** required the buyer to be compensated.
Neither an "as is" sale nor the buyer's independent inspection exonerates a seller or the seller's agent from fraudulent misrepresentations concerning known defects not otherwise visible or observable to the buyer. Loughrin v. Superior Court (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1195; Shapiro v. Hu (1986) 188 Cal. App. 3d 324, XXX-XXX, 233 Cal. Rptr. 470; Lingsch v. Savage (1963) 213 Cal. App. 2d 729,XXX-XXX,29 Cal. Rptr. 201; Greenwald & Asimow, Cal. Practice Guide: Real Property Transactions (The Rutter Group 2005) § 4:3 52, p. 4-86.10; 1 Miller & Starr, California Real Estate supra, §1:154.
"Where the seller actively misrepresents the then condition of the property or fails to disclose the rue facts of its condition not within the buyer's reach and affecting the value or desirability of the property, an 'as is' provision is ineffective to relieve the seller of liability arising from the concealed condition." Lingsch v. Savage, supra, 213 Cal. App. 2d at 742; Galen v. Mobil Oil Corp., 922 F. Supp. 318, 324 (C.D. Cal. XXXX) (Emphasis added)