Dossier summary

Possible Builder-Lender Steering Question

A sourced question for regulators: was the borrower given meaningful product choice?

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)

Question presented

The complaint asks whether the borrower was steered into a higher-cost DSCR interest-only loan because alternatives were not meaningfully presented.

The builder-lender question is whether sales pressure around closing and loan presentation worked together to narrow practical choice.

The complainant specifically alleges that Vicki Smith's builder-side closing pressure and Rob Shell's loan-option presentation worked together to push the buyer toward closing, and asks regulators to review whether that conduct was unlawful steering or manipulation.

What would support the concern

Evidence that lower-cost options were available but not disclosed.

Evidence that the borrower requested alternatives and received no written comparison.

Evidence that closing pressure was communicated while only one loan path was presented.

Evidence that compensation or referral structures favored the selected path.

What would cut against the concern

Clear written comparison of eligible products before commitment.

Documented conventional eligibility analysis and decline rationale.

Disclosure logs showing timely receipt and practical review time.

Compensation records showing no channel bias or improper referral benefit.

Related resources

Sources