Consumer complaint received 2020-07-01
Company: Shellpoint Partners, LLC
State: NC
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage

Complaint:
In relation to Case 1 submitted XX/XX/XXXX [ ID XXXX ] and received by New Rez dba Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, Escalation Dept on XX/XX/XXXX. I, petitioner, heir of subject property listed as, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, NC XXXX, now submit Complaint 2, in as much as disagreeing with the quality of answer given by the Escalation Dept regarding : The finalization of a borrowers modification in accordance to RESPA procedural guidelines. Accordingly, the question remains whether the modification is a separate entity to that of an asssumption. Evidenced by the procedure administered from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, where the finalization proceeded without delay and was efficient. We now showcase that event to compare what is thought to be in violation of RESPA, which is misleading, misinformation, and rudeness that clarity doesnt exist but confusing information suggesting that modification doesnt complete until assumption paperwork has been signed ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX   Servicing, LP No. 13-cv-224  ). But nowhere in XXXX does Shellpoint discuss Assumption. Since the subject does come up, in XXXX XXXX email headed with ( Assumption of Mortgage ) after the modification and first payment process has begun, is it incorrect to enter the Assumption protocol before completing the signing of the established modification process including the TPP. 



This complaint pertains to the Escalation Dept failure to submit a reliable answer to the question regarding whether Shellpoint failed to convert a Trial Modification into a Permanent Modification ( 12 CFR 1024.38 ). In complaint 1, question well addresses the issue where it is spelled out that what took place is misleading information regarding an Assumption. The Assumptions place does not come until the proper completion of the permanent modification. Therefore, an issue arises under how rude this might be to intervene the modification with assumption talks which started around XX/XX/XXXX, evidence by the attachment included ( email from XXXX XXXX initiating Assumption discussions ). Since the XXXX  didnt appear till about late XX/XX/XXXX, Shellpoint is nearly 3 months without any offer of permanent modification documents. This means, there were negotiations to transfer to XXXX XXXX, on the table, but Loss Mitigation recklessly has not yet offered the documents, but now has to hurry to get it done. Then this all means that this concerns a level of personal-ill will, why would the mortgage servicer try to confuse a borrower in this fashion? 





The petitioner brings to the attention that this question complicates because, if this matter comes before the tribunal, could this qualify as actual malice? Then, what has the court established when actual malice can be proven? Whether the jury has instructions to assert what this court system might consider blockbuster punitive damage awards. This might indicate, but does not ascertain that exemplary ratios of punitive damages to compensatory damages would apply. The matter could enter into exponential numbers, because of a mix of issues relating to misleading, deceit, and now the established intent of confusing the issue, which belittles this borrower. This go on to mention how we are tardy about getting the permanent modification documents signed, which should have taken place somewhere in XXXX of XXXX. However, the discussion does not arrive till late XXXX of XXXX. This goes on to mention the assumptions that the transfer to XXXX XXXX is now in transition which creates a reckless hurry to get done what should had been done back in XXXX of XXXX, to guess the role of XXXX. It just so happens that I do not wish to assume the loan, but Shellpoint applies to XXXX, that it cancelled my modification agreement because I failed to sign the confusing assumption tie in witnessed by Mr. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). At this point, a gigantic question under RESPA now exists that this presented to XXXX, a balance of {$2000.00}, that only the borrower is at burden. Then what jeopardies is the borrower subject to with XXXX including the one skipped payment in XX/XX/XXXX, due to the modification process being under way? 

Would the Escalation Dept consider the content of this complaint, as a whole, as a display of poor customer service on the behalf of Shellpoint 's Loss Mitigation Dept.? Please include in your study of these contents the case study, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

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