Consumer complaint: Our firm, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, has been monitoring our client 's request for mortgage assistance to Shellpoint to ensure Shellpoint 's compliance with Regulation X. We sent Shellpoint our client 's complete Request for Mortgage Assistance Application via facsimile on XXXX XXXX, 2016. Additionally, a hard copy of the application and supporting documents were mailed via certified mail [ Tracking No. : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ] to the address designated by Shellpoint for Loss Mitigation applications on XXXX XXXX, 2016. According to the U.S. Postal Service, Shellpoint received the hard copy application and documents on XXXX XXXX, 2016. At both the time the application was sent by us and received by Shellpoint, there was no foreclosure sale date scheduled for the property. Accordingly, the application was received more than 45 days before a scheduled sale date. Moreover, we sent a Request for Information ( " RFI '' ) to the address designated by Shellpoint on its website for such correspondence on XXXX XXXX, 2016 asking Shellpoint to determine whether the application submitted was complete or incomplete and to provide a list of any documents missing if any. 
Despite being required to send written acknowledgement of a complete or incomplete package after receipt and to respond to the Borrower 's RFI under Regulation X, Shellpoint has failed do either. As of the date of this complaint, Shellpoint has failed to send any written acknowledgement of the Borrower 's application or any written response to the Borrower 's RFI as is required under Regulation X. Due to its failure to acknowledge our client 's application package, we subsequently sent Shellpoint a Notice of Error ( " NOE '' ) on XXXX XXXX, 2016. As of the date of this complaint, we have not received any written acknowledgement or response to our NOE either. Even more unnerving than Shellpoint 's failure to acknowledge receiving the Borrower 's application is its blatant disregard for its responsibility to take any steps available to stay foreclosure proceedings as it completes the review of the application. 
While it is well settled that servicers shall instruct their counsel to take any necessary action ( s ) available to stay a pending foreclosure proceeding as a review is completed, Shellpoint has clearly failed to do. Instead, its counsel has pushed forward with the foreclosure against our client and insisted the trial go on as scheduled for XXXX XXXX, 2016. We put both Shellpoint and its counsel on notice of its failure to take any action to stay the proceeding due to the application review by sending an additional NOE to Shellpoint and handing its counsel a copy in open court. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Shellpoint 's counsel continues to insist we move forward with the trial, which is set to continue every day for the next few weeks. We believe Shellpoint is blatantly disregarding its responsibilities owed to our client pursuant to Regulation X and is brazenly engaging in the prohibited practice of dual-tracking each and every day that the trial proceeds while the review of our client 's loss mitigation application is still pending. 

Company response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law