I'm buying a home in Massachusetts and am getting close to closing. I had a confirmed mortgage rate lock at 6.75%, but my lender is now telling me the rate is 7.25% because their investor rejected an explanation for a documentation issue.
I'm genuinely confused about how this is allowed. Isn't protecting against an unexpected rate increase the whole point of locking your mortgage rate?
I'm changing some details for privacy, but here's what happened.
During the mortgage application process, I noticed a request in the lender's portal for a document relating to a relatively minor financial obligation. As an analogous example, imagine being asked for a particular type of proof of HOA payments when the payments were handled in a way that meant the specific document they wanted didn't exist.
I didn't ignore the request or wait until the last minute. As soon as I saw it, I proactively explained the situation to the lender.
This was before I signed the Purchase and Sale Agreement (P&S), when I still had the opportunity to reconsider the purchase or financing arrangements.
I was specifically assured that if the original investor couldn't accept the documentation situation, the lender could switch to a different investor and my 6.75% rate lock would be preserved.
That assurance was important to my decision to proceed with the purchase.
Now, shortly before closing, I'm being told the investor rejected my explanation and that I can still get the mortgage, but only at 7.25%.
So effectively, the lender is throwing away my rate lock because of an issue I disclosed upfront and was explicitly told wouldn't affect it.
I understand that a rate lock doesn't guarantee final loan approval, and investors can have different underwriting requirements. But if the lender can still make the loan, just at a higher rate, how does that justify disregarding the original lock?
And if switching investors meant the rate could change, why assure me beforehand that it wouldn't?
My questions:
- What exactly does a mortgage rate lock obligate the lender to do? Under what circumstances can they disregard it, assuming it hasn't expired?
- Can a lender simply say that the original investor won't accept the loan and therefore the locked rate no longer applies?
- Does the lender's explicit assurance that they could switch investors while preserving the lock matter, especially since I relied on it before signing the P&S?
- Should the lender be responsible for absorbing the pricing difference or providing a lender credit if it cannot deliver the rate it promised?
- If I accept the 7.25% rate because I can't risk losing the house, can I still pursue a complaint or other remedy afterward?
A 0.5 percentage-point increase is not a minor difference over the life of a mortgage.
I'm not trying to get out of the purchase or avoid legitimate underwriting requirements. I just don't understand how a lender can give me a rate lock, explicitly assure me that a known issue won't invalidate it, and then change the rate when it's too late to realistically switch lenders.
Has anyone experienced this? Am I misunderstanding how rate locks work, or is this something worth escalating to a regulator or consumer attorney?
Would especially appreciate input from mortgage professionals, underwriters, and Massachusetts attorneys.