I began working with Esco in October 2024. Initially, he was very engaged and organized, but as the process continued, communication became inconsistent and eventually poor. A major concern occurred when he went on vacation during underwriting without notifying us. I only learned this after calling the following week for an update. Due to the lack of communication at such a critical stage, we requested to work with someone else.
Gustafson took over the loan and handled things well from a process standpoint, but there wasn’t much connection or continuity. Ultimately, in April 2025, the deal fell through due to a low appraisal, which was discouraging after the effort put in.
After taking a break, we re‑engaged in November 2025 and gave Esco another chance. He again started strong but unfortunately repeated the same pattern of declining communication over time.
Later, through my mother‑in‑law, we connected with Megan at MSF, who stepped in and helped guide us through the process. While the road was bumpy—primarily due to imperfect credit requiring extensive verification—having clearer guidance made a meaningful difference.
Areas for Improvement:
Consistent, proactive communication, especially during underwriting and major milestones.
Clear ownership and continuity when loans are transferred between team members.
Advance notice and coverage planning during staff absences.
Improved technology workflow: Documents were spread across multiple platforms, making it difficult to track what was submitted and where.
Streamlining everything into one centralized software system would greatly reduce confusion and stress for borrowers.
Overall, the biggest challenge was not the requirements themselves, but managing uncertainty, communication gaps, and fragmented systems during an already complex process.
