Dossier summary

Earnest Money Pressure

The complaint's pressure theory and the contract records needed to test it.

This page summarizes public records, third-party reporting, and disputed complaint materials. It does not state that unresolved allegations are true or that any person or entity violated the law unless a cited regulator or court record says so.

Professional record context

People named in the record

Public professional identifiers are provided for source review. Personal contact details are intentionally omitted.

Public professional profile

Vicki Smith

Role
New Home Sales Consultant
Organization
PulteGroup
License number:
Not established by current cited sources.

Pulte Homes Tennessee is listed in a separate public listing record as professional context only.

Vicki Smith's LinkedIn profile (opens in a new tab)

Public professional profile

Mackenzie Curtis

Role
Divisional Builder Manager
Organization
Acrisure Mortgage
NMLS ID
NMLS ID #471956

The submitted complaint identifies Mackenzie Curtis as a Mutual of Omaha Mortgage Regional Vice President, Builder Division, in August 2025. Her current official profile lists Acrisure Mortgage, so this site does not imply an ongoing Mutual affiliation.

Mackenzie Curtis's current official profile (opens in a new tab)

Public company context

Mutual of Omaha Mortgage

Public professional profile

Tony Fragale

Branch Manager, Vice President of Mortgage Lending

NMLS ID #76480

The cited official profile establishes public professional context only; it does not identify a connection to the Dupont complaint.

Official public profile (opens in a new tab)

Deposit amount alleged: $10,000 per property

Dispute: Whether the borrower had practical room to reject the DSCR option

Complaint allegation

The complaint alleges that the borrower faced pressure to close because failure to proceed could put earnest-money deposits at risk.

The rebuttal states that agreement-to-proceed language should be read in that context, not as proof of unrestricted product preference.

Why it matters

A borrower can technically sign or proceed while still lacking meaningful choice if the practical alternative is losing a deposit or missing a hard deadline.

The question is whether disclosure timing and product-option presentation gave the borrower a realistic chance to compare alternatives before that pressure point.

Records needed

Purchase contract deposit provisions.

Written warnings or communications about forfeiture risk.

Timeline of disclosure delivery against closing deadlines.

Any requests to extend closing or seek alternate financing.

Related resources

Sources