Florida homeowner claims PRMI ignored evidence and threatened foreclosure after rejecting on-time payments
A Florida homeowner is taking on a national mortgage lender, alleging it wrongly rejected payments and threatened foreclosure despite years of on-time payments.
Victoria Rohn, a resident of West Palm Beach, has filed suit in federal court against Primary Residential Mortgage, Inc. (PRMI), claiming the company repeatedly mishandled her home loan and ignored clear evidence that she was never in default. The case, filed on October 29, 2025, in the Southern District of Florida, offers a close look at the challenges that can arise when servicing disputes escalate between borrower and lender.
According to the court filing, Rohn refinanced her home in 2020, completing a three-month approval process that included multiple appraisals and a review of her finances. The mortgage was signed by both Rohn and her then-husband in front of a licensed notary and a witness. Rohn states she has made every payment on time and complied with all terms of the loan.
The dispute began in August 2023, when PRMI sent a letter declaring Rohn in default, citing alleged fraud and misrepresentations in the execution of the mortgage. The company asserted it had “clear and convincing evidence” that her then-husband did not sign the mortgage, even though the documents were notarized. In response, Rohn provided a letter from the notary, William M. Holland, Jr., confirming he personally witnessed the signature after verifying identity with a driver’s license. The filing states that PRMI did not accept this evidence and continued to treat the mortgage as if it were in default.
Over the next year, the situation escalated. PRMI sent a series of acceleration letters, each demanding immediate payment of the full mortgage balance—at one point totaling $90,652.76—and threatening foreclosure if Rohn did not comply. The lender allegedly rejected Rohn’s timely payment of $816.59 in June 2025 and, after accepting a subsequent payment, failed to properly apply it. By July 2025, PRMI was sending statements claiming Rohn was past due, even though she had made her payments. When Rohn attempted to pay $1,666.32—more than the amount claimed due—PRMI rejected the payment and assessed a late fee of $21.05.
Rohn’s counsel sent two written notices of error to PRMI in July and August 2025, identifying specific servicing errors and requesting corrections as outlined under Regulation X. According to the filing, PRMI did not provide a written response or correct the errors within the required timeframe. Instead, PRMI sent further letters declaring the loan in default, demanding $1,654.17, and threatening foreclosure and negative credit reporting.
Rohn claims she has suffered persistent emotional distress, including fear, anxiety, and insecurity about her home and financial future, as well as unnecessary expenses in retaining counsel. She also claims her credit has been harmed and that she has spent significant time and money trying to resolve the dispute.
For mortgage professionals, the case underscores the importance of clear communication, accurate payment processing, and compliance with federal and state servicing regulations. The allegations, if proven, could prompt further attention to how servicers handle disputed defaults and borrower communications.
PRMI has not yet responded in court, and no final determination has been made. As the case moves forward, it is likely to be watched by mortgage industry professionals interested in the evolving standards for servicing and borrower protection.
