Borrower alleges UWM ignored her billing dispute, then wrecked her credit
What she is chasing
The lawsuit stacks seven causes of action. Two are federal – one under RESPA, one under the FCRA. The remaining five run through Michigan state law: intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, negligence per se, defamation by libel, and malicious statutory libel under Michigan’s M.C.L. Section 600.2911.
The RESPA count boils down to four alleged failures: not correcting the borrower’s account and telling her about it; not explaining why UWM believed the account was correct or providing a contact person; not handing over the information she asked for or explaining why it was unavailable; and reporting overdue payment information to a credit agency during the 60-day window after receiving her qualified written request – a period when RESPA restricts that kind of reporting.
The borrower is seeking actual, statutory, and punitive damages, plus attorney fees, and has demanded a jury trial.
One detail at the top of the filing adds context. A prior federal case between these same parties was already filed in the same court and “is no longer pending and has been dismissed with prejudice,” the complaint states. That means it was resolved for good and cannot be refiled on the same claims.
For servicers and compliance teams, the case is a practical reminder: qualified written request obligations under RESPA are not optional correspondence – they are regulatory tripwires, and a borrower’s attorney will build a seven-count federal case around the response window.
