Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
A Michigan borrower has sued United Wholesale Mortgage LLC, alleging the mortgage servicer mishandled her billing dispute and later verified inaccurate information sent to credit bureaus. The case was reportedly filed on October 6, 2026; no court has decided whether the allegations are true.
What the lawsuit alleges
A Mortgage Professional report published October 8, 2026, says Kathryn Gary’s complaint concerns two stages of a dispute: the handling of a mortgage account inquiry and the later investigation of credit-reporting disputes. The report summarizes the complaint; the allegations have not been established as facts.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The mortgage servicing dispute
According to the report’s account of the complaint, Gary mailed UWM a qualified written request (QWR) on May 13, 2024. The complaint reportedly said the letter included her name, loan number, and property address, described billing errors, and requested information to help her understand them.
She alleges that UWM failed to correct the account or notify her of its decision, explain why it considered the account accurate or identify a contact person, and provide requested information or explain why it was unavailable. The report also says she alleges UWM reported overdue payment information during the 60-day period after receiving the QWR.
#1 Best Overall
The credit-reporting dispute
The complaint reportedly alleges that Gary later found information she considered false on her credit reports and disputed it through credit bureaus. The bureaus allegedly forwarded her disputes to UWM, which verified the information instead of correcting it. The FCRA claims, as summarized in the report, concern allegedly unreasonable reinvestigation and inaccurate reporting, including a failure to tell reporting agencies that the debt was disputed.
What claims and remedies are reported
The news report describes seven counts: claims under the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), along with intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, negligence per se, defamation by libel, and malicious statutory libel under Michigan law.
Rank #2
- Ideal for Gifting
- Ideal for a bookworm
- Compact for travelling
Gary reportedly seeks actual, statutory, and punitive damages, attorney fees, and a jury trial. These are requests in a lawsuit, not damages awarded by a court. The reported claim descriptions come from secondary reporting, and the complaint itself has not been independently reviewed here.
What a qualified written request means for borrowers
A QWR is a written request associated with a mortgage loan account that can ask a servicer to correct an account error or provide information. The complaint, as described in the report, characterizes Gary’s May 2024 letter as a QWR. That description alone does not establish whether the letter met every legal requirement or whether UWM violated RESPA.
The case’s reported allegations about the 60-day period concern this borrower’s claim and should not be read as a ruling that every credit report entry during a dispute is unlawful. Whether a servicer’s response or reporting complies with the law depends on the facts and applicable legal requirements.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Case status and what remains uncertain
Justia’s docket listing identifies the case as Gary v. United Wholesale Mortgage LLC, No. 2:2026cv13798, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. It lists Kathryn Gary as plaintiff and UWM as defendant, and shows a complaint and summons filed October 6, 2026. Justia’s listing was last retrieved on that date and may not reflect later docket activity: Justia docket listing.
Rank #4
The available accounts do not resolve two procedural details. The news report says the complaint references an earlier case between the same parties that was dismissed with prejudice, while Justia’s new-case listing says “Previously dismissed case: No” and notes a possible companion case, No. 25-10810. The listing’s cause-of-action metadata also classifies the case under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, whereas the news report describes RESPA and FCRA claims. Neither discrepancy establishes what claims are actually pleaded or how any earlier case relates to this one. The complaint and current court docket would be needed to clarify them.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →As of the October 8, 2026 report, the merits had not been decided. The lawsuit therefore does not establish that UWM ignored a valid dispute, reported inaccurate information, or violated any law.
Quick Recap
Best Value
- It can be a gift option
- Comes with secure packaging
- Helpful in various ways
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
