Consumer complaint received 2017-08-22
Company: Shellpoint Partners, LLC
State: OH
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: Mortgage debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed
Sub-issue: Debt was already discharged in bankruptcy and is no longer owed

Complaint:
XX/XX/XXXX XXXX QWR NOTICE OF ERROR Loan : XXXX Subject Property : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Ohio XXXX Owner XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Last 4 of XXXX XXXX Mailing address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Ohio XXXX. Ref : CFPB report XXXX I filed a Notice of error attachment XXXX Notice of Error along with all of my statements that the loan servicing company XXXX XXXX was attempting to collect Discharged Bankruptcy  Debt. Each of the exhibits I presented in this attachment listed a cram down debt that was not collectable and illegal to ask for. See attachments in report XXXX. Shell point responded to my Notice of Error with a correspondence letter on XX/XX/XXXX. Per this letter shell point states Shellpoint acknowledges your concerns regarding the history of the debt. Reviewing the loans history indicates that we previously received similar inquires. We have enclosed those responses, as we believe they have been address the majority of your concerns. As conveyed in the attached, Shellpoint confirmed that the previous mortgage servicers updated the loans terms to reflect those stipulated in the Reaffirmation Agreement. In an attempt to clarify just what Shellpoint is stating I am break this statement down so that we can see how Shellpoint dictated this letter what I believe was in a vague almost deceptive path on the facts and responsibilities of the loan servicer I had brought to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and their loan servicing companys Shellpoints attention. Shellpoint acknowledges your concerns regarding the history of the debt. Reviewing the loans history indicates that we previously received similar inquires. At this point Shellpoint has reviewed my loan and studied the exhibits and now acknowledges on record that the previous loan processor has been in violation of the CFPB and the Bankruptcy code by listing and demanding the discharged debt on the 30 plus statements and also in a payoff statement that I provided in my CFPB report XXXX. We have enclosed those responses, as we believe they have been address the majority of your concerns. Okay so nothing new to state just the something that was stated before but now Shellpoint has the an issue and under the loan assumptions rules per the CFPB this now is the new investors XXXX aka XXXX XXXX problem. I have now forwarded all of the illegal statements with my supporting evidence of the violations on my loan. As conveyed in the attached, Shellpoint confirmed that the previous mortgage servicers updated the loanss terms to reflect those stipulated in the Reaffirmation Agreement. And here it is Shellpoint finally confirms that the loan was updated by the pervious servicer to reflect the court order reaffirmation agreement the only thing that they so deceptively or vaguely forgot to mention was that it was not updated until XX/XX/XXXX which was 5 years after it was court order and filed by a federal JUDGE. Companys responsibility to comply with the Non-Performing Loan sales rules and regulations per the loss waterfall mitigation and abide by correct and if need be settle any disputes as follow all my properties are post XX/XX/XXXX. I have highlighted in red a portion of the Rules and Regulations that are not being followed by Shellpoint or XXXX aka XXXX XXXX. I have had 6 loans make there was through the NPL non-performing loan sales at which XXXX received the winning bid on all 6. Below I have included the outline for the sales requirements. Fact Sheet NON-PERFORMING LOAN ( NPL ) SALE REQUIREMENTS XX/XX/XXXX On XX/XX/XXXX, the Federal Housing Finance Agency ( FHFA ) announced enhanced non-performing loan ( NPL ) requirements for sales of NPLs by XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX ( the Enterprises ) that will reduce risk to taxpayers by transferring it to the private sector. FHFA believes that the sale of severely delinquent loans through NPL sales will reduce Enterprise losses and improve borrower and neighborhood outcomes. The enhanced NPL sale requirements draw upon the experience of XXXX XXXX two pilot sales of NPLs last year and this year. The loans in these two transactions have an aggregate value of approximately one billion dollars in unpaid principal balance. The loans included in NPL sales will generally be severely delinquent typically more than one year past due. FHFAs goal is to achieve more favorable outcomes for the Enterprises and for borrowers by providing alternatives to foreclosure wherever possible. In addition, reporting by servicers on borrower outcomes will be required after the transactions close, which will allow the Enterprises to document whether the desired outcomes are being achieved. Future NPL sales by the Enterprises must meet the enhanced requirements, which include the following : Bidder qualifications : Bidders will be required to identify their servicing partners at the time of qualification and must complete a servicing questionnaire to demonstrate a record of successful resolution of loans through alternatives to foreclosure ; Modification requirements : The new servicer will be required to evaluate all pre-XX/XX/XXXX borrowers ( other than those whose foreclosure sale date is imminent or whose property is vacant ) for the U.S. Department of the Treasurys Making Home Affordable programs, including the Home Affordable Modification Program ( HAMP ). All post-XX/XX/XXXX borrowers ( other than those with an imminent foreclosure sale date or vacant property ) must be evaluated for a proprietary modification. Proprietary modifications must not include an upfront fee or require prepayment of any amount of mortgage debt, and must provide a benefit to the borrower with the potential for a sustainable modification ; Loss mitigation waterfall requirements : Servicers must apply a waterfall of resolution tactics that includes evaluating borrower eligibility for a loan modification ( HAMP and/or proprietary modification ), a short sale, and a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure. Foreclosure must be the last option in the waterfall. The waterfall may consider net present value to the investor ; REO sale requirements : Servicers are encouraged to sell properties that have gone through foreclosure and entered Real Estate Owned ( REO ) status to individuals who will occupy the property as their primary residence or to non-profits. For the first 20 days after any NPL that becomes an REO property is marketed, the property may be sold only to buyers who intend to occupy the property as their primary residence or to non-profits ; Subsequent servicer requirements : Subsequent servicers must assume the responsibilities of the initial servicer ; Bidding transparency : To facilitate transparency of the NPL sales program and encourage robust participation by all interested participants, each Enterprise will develop a process for announcing upcoming NPL sale offerings. This will include an NPL webpage on the Enterprises website, email distribution to small, non-profit and minority- and women-owned business ( MWOB ) investors, and proactive outreach to potential bidders. Additionally, each Enterprise will host training sessions for interested non-profit and MWOB investors to facilitate better understanding of the NPL sales process. The Enterprises will also offer small pools of NPLs, where feasible ; Reporting requirements : NPL buyers and servicers, including subsequent servicers, are required to report loan resolution results and borrower outcomes to the Enterprises for four years after the NPL sale. These reports will help inform whether to make future changes to NPL sales requirements and determine whether an NPL buyer and NPL servicer continue to be eligible for future sales based on pool level borrower outcomes, adjusted for subsequent market events. Consistent with applicable law, FHFA and/or the Enterprises will provide public reports on aggregate borrower outcomes at the pool level. Fannie Mae : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  have seen a history of improper implantation of the NPL regulations by Shellpoint and XXXX both not acknowledging inaccuracies of the pervious loan servicer and when I disclosed to them in a CFPB report neither are mitigating to a mutual beneficial conclusion on post-XX/XX/XXXX debt as per the rules state that borrowers ( other than those with an imminent foreclosure sale date or vacant property ) must be evaluated for a proprietary modification. For example in XX/XX/XXXX I had a loan on a property purchased by XXXX at that time the loan did not have an imminent foreclosure sale date but was under litigation and the property was occupied not vacant. Neither XXXX nor Shellpoint ever notified the court about the sale of the note or the transfer of the mortgage servicing rights from XXXX to Shellpoint. I believe that this should have been disclosed to the courts within maximum 90 days of the sale the least. But Shellpoint only contacted the lawyer that was representing the previous loan servicer and kept moving forward towards procuring an imminent sale date still using XXXX name filing documents in the case as though they still had an interest in the property. I was not asked or informed of any modifications options or loss mitigation options. I was backed into a corner by Shell point and the investor XXXX making it clear that all of the serious illegal issues that I had with the previous loan servicer such as asking for and listing on my monthly statements discharged bankruptcy  debt was being ignored by Shellpoint and XXXX. The day before the sale I received a call from shell point offering a short sale option. I believe this was offed because the property was only appraised for half of what they were asking for and if sold at the sheriffs sale the property might have sold for less. This complete neglect of the NPL rules cost both me and the XXXX time and money. Shell point did not follow the NPL sales rules of loss mitigation on my loan in XX/XX/XXXX and has failed again as of today forcing my hand to again to file a complaint for the reasons of : 1. I have not been given a modification that makes sense. The offer that was presented would only serve the investor with me no way out of the property. The offer was the investor taking any money allegedly owed on the note adding it to the principle balance which was doubling the amount of the note to {$65000.00}. The investor and Shell point listed a payment of {$400.00} dollars a month and stated that if I made 3 monthly payments they would permanently modify my mortgage loan. I found an issue here Shell point failed to list an interest rate or any terms with this proposal and when I contacted Shell point about my concerns I was refused the agreement and was never given another option. 2. I received a letter from Shell point stating that the investor would not accept a deed in lieu of foreclosure now leaving me now with only litigation cost piling up daily. But whats interesting is that I never offered them one. 3. I did offer a short sale to the investor to get out of the loan. Shell point denied the offer and would not even counter. This type of action would only constitute that the investor has 1. No real idea of the value of the property. 2. Has not been notified by Shell point of the pervious loan servicers mismanagement of my loan in which now they have assumed the responsibility of per the NPL sales rule Subsequent servicer requirements : Subsequent servicers must assume the responsibilities of the initial servicer ; and by incompetence of not compiling to the Bankruptcy code and CFPB rules or at least the making some kind of sanction or adjustment in my favor on my loan in good faith for the mismanagement of my loan to accommodate me and get this loan back on track. CONCLUSION : As of today Shell point and XXXX has once again taken the complete opposite direction of the rules and regulations of the NPL sales. They have manipulated the courts the NPL and CFPB rules that govern my loans in their favor to position themselves to take the property and back me into a corner. I only have one loan let with this servicer and investor so if a war is what they are wanting I will have them explaining their actions to a Bankruptcy Judge. I feel that if XXXX aka XXXX XXXX and Shellpoint has been clever enough to figure out how to move though the system without being detected of any wrong doing someone needs to blow the whistle on these illegal actions. Again I have listed all of my Exhibits in a previous report XXXX which was either ignored or vaguely glanced at by Shell point and XXXX leaving issues half explained away but never resolved. XXXX XXXX XXXX.

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