Seven counts. One letter UWM allegedly never answered
A Michigan borrower has sued United Wholesale Mortgage, alleging the wholesale lending giant ignored her written dispute over billing errors, kept collecting money she says she didn't owe, and then torpedoed her credit score by reporting inaccurate information to the bureaus.
The borrower filed a seven-count lawsuit on October 6, 2026, in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The case zeroes in on two federal statutes that every mortgage servicer lives with daily: the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
It started with a letter
The timeline, according to the filing, begins on May 13, 2024. That is when the borrower sent United Wholesale Mortgage what is known under RESPA as a qualified written request - essentially a formal "explain this bill" letter that forces servicers to investigate and respond. Her letter included her name, loan number, and property address, the lawsuit says. It spelled out why she believed there were billing errors and asked for enough detail to pin down exactly what was wrong.
When a servicer gets one of these letters, federal law requires a response - either fix the account and tell the borrower, or explain why the account is correct and provide a contact person. The filing alleges United Wholesale Mortgage did neither. Instead, the lawsuit claims, the company "refused to lawfully and properly respond" and "continued to attempt to collect money not owed by the Plaintiff."
It got worse from there. The suit says UWM "failed to conduct the necessary investigation into the disputes" and "continued with its collection against Plaintiff and subjected Plaintiff to additional illegal charges and fees."
Then came the credit reports
The borrower discovered what the filing calls "false information" on her consumer credit reports being reported by United Wholesale Mortgage. She disputed the information through the major credit bureaus, asking them to look into it and fix it, according to the lawsuit.
The bureaus did their part and forwarded her dispute to UWM for verification - standard procedure. But rather than correcting anything, the filing alleges, United Wholesale Mortgage "responded to the reinvestigation request by verifying" the very information the borrower had flagged as wrong. The lawsuit says UWM "failed to reasonably reinvestigate" and that this failure "was willful."
Even after the borrower notified UWM directly, the suit alleges the company "reported credit information that was not in fact accurate" and "failed to notify the consumer reporting agencies to whom it reported credit information that the debt was disputed."
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.
None of these allegations have been tested, and no court has made any findings on the merits.
