It’s Your Money. Why Must You Fight the Mortgage Company to Keep It?

Author’s Note: This article draws on my personal experience assisting a Kentucky homeowner in challenging excessive mortgage escrow collections and securing cancellation of the escrow account. It reflects my longstanding commitment to consumer protection, transparency, and fairness in real estate transactions.

By T.W. Shortt | Kentucky Real Estate Broker Since 1989 | CRS®, CRB® | Principal Broker, REALTY WORLD® Knox Realty Group, LLC — The Fort Knox Office™ | Former President, Heart of Kentucky Association of REALTORS®

A homeowner builds substantial equity in a property, faithfully makes the mortgage payments, and demonstrates the financial ability to manage homeownership.

You would think eliminating unnecessary mortgage-related expenses would be relatively simple.

From personal experience, I can tell you it isn’t always that way.

A Real Kentucky Homeowner’s Experience

Last year, I became involved in helping a borrower deal with Truist Mortgage over an escrow account that was collecting considerably more money than needed to pay property taxes and insurance.

The borrower had more than 50% equity in the home. Yet the mortgage servicer was collecting $8,747.52 annually for escrow, approximately 50% more than the borrower calculated was necessary.

The anticipated result? Nearly $4,000 in excess funds that would eventually be refunded instead of remaining available to the homeowner.

Think about that. Money belonging to the borrower was being withheld month after month.

The borrower was perfectly capable of paying property taxes and insurance directly. But obtaining relief required repeated correspondence, a formal complaint to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and additional requests to terminate the escrow account.

Ultimately, the borrower reported that the escrow account had been canceled.

Why should something so straightforward require so much effort?

Washington May Finally Be Addressing Part of the Problem

On October 22, 2026, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled Decreasing Housing Costs for the American People.

Among its provisions is a proposed pilot program directing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to proactively identify homeowners who qualify for cancellation of mortgage insurance.

Rather than requiring borrowers to discover their eligibility, arrange unnecessary documentation, and repeatedly request relief, the program could use automated property valuations and mortgage records to determine when insurance should be canceled.

Imagine the mortgage company notifying you that your equity qualifies you for lower payments—without your having to fight for it.

There is an important distinction. Our Kentucky case concerned escrow accounts for taxes and homeowners insurance. The executive order addresses mortgage insurance premiums, a separate expense.

Nevertheless, both situations raise the same fundamental question: Why must homeowners struggle to eliminate costs that are no longer justified?

A Welcome Change, but Not Yet a Reality

The proposed automatic-cancellation pilot would apply only to new mortgages originated after the program begins, and borrowers must meet applicable requirements.

It does not immediately eliminate premiums on existing mortgages.

Still, after nearly four decades in Kentucky real estate, I welcome efforts to make mortgage servicing more responsive to the people paying the bills.

Technology should work for homeowners, not simply the institutions servicing their mortgages.

If a borrower’s equity and payment history justify eliminating a mortgage expense, the system ought to recognize it without unnecessary obstacles.

Homeownership is expensive enough. Keeping money in homeowners’ pockets shouldn’t require a battle.

---

Source: White House Executive Order — Decreasing Housing Costs for the American People, October 22, 2026

REALTY WORLD Knox Realty Group, LLC

Editor’s note: The escrow experience is based on borrower correspondence from February–April 2025. The reported overcollection was the borrower’s calculation, not a finding of regulatory wrongdoing.