Consumer complaint received 2023-04-18
Company: Shellpoint Partners, LLC
State: MD
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage

Complaint:
: The purpose of the HAF program is to provide struggling mortgage borrowers with assistance to avoid foreclosures. Servicers have had an obligation to notify borrowers of the availability of the HAF program Homeowner Assistance Fund ( HAF ) funds are used to bring account fully current, with no remaining delinquent amounts post loss. Again, HAF Funds are used to bring account fully current, with XXXX DOLLAR remaining delinquent amounts at time of distribution. 
Payments to the mortgage servicer only resume when reinstatement is officially noted and sent as a notice to the borrower ( s ). 
mitigation efforts since XX/XX/XXXX. 
Never notified us of HAF program. 
I live in Maryland and in XX/XX/XXXX a HAF loan was applied for. At every step, Shellpoint reps lied and and failed to follow many rules and guidelines and regulations set out by both the state of maryland the US federal govt.

After repeated failures of Shellpoint reps to respond to state of maryland and after they tried to trick my Mother into a modification without advancing her HAF applcation by their OWN ADMISSION ( seee prior replies by XXXX shellpoint rep to CFPB ) A HAF application was again filed. 
Finally after Shellpoint again played games earlier this year, Senior HAF reps for Maryland finally approved grant and loan for HAF. 
AT no point did Shellpoint reach out during this process. Once the loan is FORMALLY reinstated and noted in an official letter from the servicer ( in this case Shellpoint ), only then does the the borrower resume making regular payments on the debt. 
Again I am completely aware of all payments made and all communications received. Since HAF funds were approved by State of Maryland reps and distributed to Shellpoint mid XXXX, Shellpoint has sent out one communication via postal mail. 
Instead of sending a confirmation reinstatement, instead of offering lower payments as required by HAF guidelines, instead of stating when new payments were start, Shellpoint has the absolute nerve to demand nearly XXXX dollars be paid to avoid foreclosure that they threatened less than 3 weeks after they received nearly XXXX worth of HAF funds. 
Before we hire a lawyer who is a specialist in dealing with Shellpoint antics, we are presenting the situation here in the hopes that they make things simple on themselves. 
We demand that Shellpoint notes the payment of nearly XXXX in HAF funds, an official reinstatement letter, and also request a list of ALL payments made and covered by HAF funds, and when the new payment amount starts. 
As the payments were on hold until HAF funds were approved and released mid XXXX, it's is quite shocking for shellpoint to dare demand nearly XXXX and threaten foreclosure less than 3 weeks after receiving HAF funds. 
So far we have noted that Shellpoint has violated. 
The entire XXXX family is a military family and Shellpoint 's mistreatment falls under violation of SCRA. " While military families enjoy the same legal protections and privileges afforded to all other homeowners and tenants, they also have additional housing protections under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act ( SCRA ), which is enforceable by the Justice Department and servicemembers themselves. '' https : //www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-and-cfpb-put-landlords-and-mortgage-servicers-notice-about-servicemembers They also clearly violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 ( CFPA ) Further according to FAQ presented by state of maryland for HAF funds : If notified by DHCD that the borrower qualified for HAF funds, the servicer : o Accepts HAF funds as reinstatement, sends borrower a letter stating that reinstatement is underway or now completed, lists the time frame for payments restarting, and/or o Evaluates the borrower for loss mitigation based on the availability of those funds, and if the borrower qualified for loss mitigation under the servicers normal guidelines, offered the borrower any loss mitigation option for which the borrower qualified. 

Shellpoint again has not done any of the above and instead tried to once against trick my Mother, an elderly military widow, into sending in payments that were not overdue or owing since the mortgage was ubject to the HAF loan process and put on hold. 


https : //home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/HAF-Guidance.pdf Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, Pub. L. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281 ( XXXX. XXXX, XXXX ). 2 The CARES Act defines a Federally backed mortgage loan as any loan which is secured by a first or subordinate lien on residential real property ( including individual units of condominiums and cooperatives ) designed principally for the occupancy of from one-to-four families that is insured by the Federal Housing Administration under title II of the National Housing Act ( 12 U.S.C. 1707 et seq. ) ; insured under section 255 of the National Housing Act ( 12 U.S.C. 1715z20 ) ; guaranteed under section 184 or 184A of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 ( 12 U.S.C. 1715z13a, 1715z13b ); guaranteed or insured by the Department of Veterans Affairs; guaranteed or insured by the Department of Agriculture ; made by the Department of Agriculture ; or purchased or securitized by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation or the Federal National Mortgage Association. CARES Act, Pub. L.

116-136, section 4022 ( a ) ( 2 ). 
The CFPB is closely monitoring servicer conduct to ensure that they are complying with all applicable federal consumer financial laws and assisting consumers with resolving delinquencies and preventing avoidable foreclosures. As part of this monitoring, the CFPB will continue its heightened review of mortgage servicing complaints, including in particular complaints about challenges working with servicers to use HAF funds. The CFPB encourages servicers to provide borrowers with sufficient time to move through the HAF application process prior to proceeding with foreclosure. Foreclosing on a homeowner while a HAF application is pending undercuts the congressional purpose in allocating this money, increases avoidable foreclosures, and will merit increased scrutiny.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation