Consumer complaint received 2017-07-01
Company: Shellpoint Partners, LLC
State: CT
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage

Complaint:
NOTE to CFPB : Accessing CFPB website all-but impossible. Took several attempts to file this complaint. STILL awaiting access to - and/or copies of - responses to my 2 previous complaints against Shellpoint. <P/>This is completely unacceptable its gotten worse rather than better and MUST be resolved ASAP. <P/><P/>This is a new, multi-tiered complaint against Shellpoint. Following is pertinent / directly related background information + my complaints : 1. For well-over 6 months, Shellpoint ( and/or its attorneys ) has continued to string me along with regard to the lack of a reasonable, bona fide modification offer - for absolutely no valid reason ( s ), whatsoever. <P/>2. In XX/XX/XXXX, I was in the State of CTs foreclosure mediation program ( in which I currently remain ). <P/>3. As indicated via the attached documents, on XX/XX/XXXX, I forwarded via email my job offer acceptance email to : A ) Shellpoints attorneys ( then known as XXXX XXXX = XX/XX/XXXX, now known as XXXX XXXX = XXXX ), B ) Shellpoints servicing predecessor : XXXX + C ) State of CT Mediator, XXXX XXXX in advance of our XX/XX/XXXX mediation session. <P/>4. Though Shellpoint was not directly involved initially, its attorneys, XXXX  have represented both XXXX and Shellpoint on this matter including throughout the court and mediation processes. <P/>5. During the XX/XX/XXXX mediation session, I was told by XXXX that - although an employer-signed job offer letter was preferred, my email acceptance of said job offer would suffice, under the circumstances - as my future employer is a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX who was exceedingly busy during the XXXX  snow removal season. <P/>6. XXXX subsequently sent me a follow-up letter copy attached ( dated XX/XX/XXXX and received XX/XX/XXXX ) confirming receipt of 100 % of the requested pre-modification documents ( including the job offer confirmation email ). <P/>7. The XX/XX/XXXX letter claimed that the modification review would take +/- 30 days and that Id receive a follow-up ( either a modification or perhaps, a request for additional information ) shortly thereafter. <P/>8. Never occurred. No follow-up whatsoever by XXXX, Shellpoint or their ( mutual attorneys : XXXX ). <P/>9. NOTE : Though they falsely claim otherwise, Shellpoints sister organization is current note holder : XXXX XXXX ( both organizations operated by politically connected all the way to The White House - current and/or former XXXX XXXX executives and/or business associates ). <P/>10. Via said political connections, XXXX XXXX ( clearly an acronym for XXXX XXXX as opposed to mortgage servicers which speaks for itself : not a good sign for borrowers ) purchased my note along with several others from quasi-government entity, XXXX XXXX on/about XX/XX/XXXX. <P/>11. As such, both XXXX XXXX and Shellpoint commenced the servicing changeover process from XXXX to Shellpoint on/about XX/XX/XXXX. <P/>12. Not surprisingly, I received no correspondence from any of the above entities - until I received a motion for strict foreclosure - 11 DAYS PRIOR TO EVER RECEIVING ANY CORRESPONDENCE FROM SHELLPOINT in XX/XX/XXXX. <P/>13. XXXX XXXX the very same attorneys who represent BOTH Shellpoint AND XXXX - AND the very same attorneys who met with me multiple times in State of CT Mediation knowing full-well that I was still in mediation + beyond-patiently awaiting a modification STILL filed the motion for strict foreclosure against me in XX/XX/XXXX, on behalf of Shellpoint, in bad faith regardless of the circumstances. <P/>14. As indicated via attached documents, the judge ruled in my favor, under the ( beyond-unfair ) circumstances. <P/>15. During this court appearance, I notified the judge about the job offer acceptance email. Shellpoints attorney the very same attorney in the XX/XX/XXXX mediation session - did an about-face, insisting on an employer-signed job offer letter. <P/>16. As also indicated via attached documents, the judge specifically directed me to produce an employer-signed job offer letter in preparation for my next mediation session and I did just that. <P/>17. As clearly communicated to Shellpoints attorney - initially during the XX/XX/XXXX mediation session + reiterated during every step in this process, including : during the XX/XX/XXXX court appearance + reiterated in the subsequent correspondence + most-recent mediation session : due to the important nature of my impending ( newly created specifically for me ) position as XXXX XXXX which will be the # 2 position ( 2nd only to the owner ) in the organization, my future employer is adamant that I complete all mediation sessions + have received the modification as one of my primary responsibilities will be to establish high standards for punctuality and attendance. <P/>18. At no point in this process has this been deemed unacceptable including by the judge during theXX/XX/XXXX court appearance. <P/>19. Ive since been unreasonably asked - multiple times via Shellpoint and/or its attorney - to produce updated versions of the employer-signed job offer letter and I did just that, the first 3 requests ( 4 total including the original job offer acceptance email ). <P/>20. Attached are copies of the 3 updated versions of the employer-signed job offer letter that Ive already provided to Shellpoint and/or its attorney as well as a copy of the original job offer acceptance email. <P/>21. What Shellpoint and its attorneys fail to realize and/or acknowledge is that each succeeding request has further tested my future employers patience and understanding. <P/>22. What Shellpoint and its attorneys ALSO fail to realize and/or acknowledge is that each succeeding unreasonable request has further delayed my start date which has now cost me 6 months income. <P/>23. I refused Shellpoints 4TH REQUEST for the SAME INFORMATION a few weeks ago ( which, by the way, SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED ANOTHER COPY OF THE EMPLOYER-SIGNED JOB OFFER LETTER ). <P/>24. Shellpoint single point of contact # 3 also attempted to have me call her for more specifics re : the employment letter. <P/>25. Based upon far-less than stellar experiences with Shellpoint to date + countless failed verbal promises and/or improper instructions in the past via a steadily revolving door of single points of contact most of who arent on the same page with one-another and/or who provide the borrower with contradictory instructions ( with this matter already being yet another case-in-point ), etc, I learned the hard way to never do or agree to - ANYTHING verbally. <P/>26. Contract law 101 advises states that written agreements and/or contracts can not be amended and/or modified verbally. <P/>27. Besides : unless one is up to no good why would all other instructions be in writing but some instructions verbal. I smell ( ed ) a rat. <P/>28. The 4th unreasonable Shellpoint request came via yet ANOTHER Shellpoint single point of contact : already the 3RD of at least 5 Shellpoint single points of contact to date, and counting 29. I then filed the previous complaint via the CFBP. <P/>30. But instead of sending me my well-deserved + long-overdue modification offer, the very same Shellpoint rep who only weeks earlier - requested a 4th version of the employer-signed job offer letter did another about-face this time requesting a copy of recent paystubs. <P/>31. But if she was actually paying attention i.e. took the time to actually read the content of the FIRST 3 versions of the employer-signed job offer letters that Ive already provided to Shellpoint and/or its attorney, she would have clearly seen that the start date is/was XX/XX/XXXX. <P/>32. So unless Shellpoint can figure a way to ship me a time-machine, sending future, yet to exist recent paystubs would be impossible. <P/>33. Cant make this stuff up. <P/>34. My official start date ofXX/XX/XXXX has now been jeopardized via the lack of modification + unnecessary and completely inexcusable and avoidable delays by Shellpoint ( due to the long holiday weekend, actual start date is/was to beXX/XX/XXXX). <P/>35. I remain seriously concerned that the most recent Shellpoint-caused delay may be the final straw for my future employer and I may lose this opportunity. <P/>36. Its gotten to the point now that Im seriously considering not only counter-suing to stop the foreclosure and force Shellpoints hand at offering a modification, but also suing for financial and punitive damages - for all of the lost income + undue stress, completely avoidable delays, etc. <P/>37. Shellpoint has failed to provide me with copies of its response to my CFPB complaints to either of my first 2 complaints to the CFPB. <P/>38. According to the CFPB, the 2 Shellpoint responses were supposedly copied to the CFPB yet are 'addressed to me even though I never received the alleged original copies of these responses. <P/>39. This is deceptive and underhanded. <P/>40. If the response letters are ADDRESSED to me then the original letters must be MAILED to me + copied to the CFPB. Otherwise, it gives the CFPB and others the false impression that the original responses were sent to the complainant ( i.e. me ). Not kosher. <P/>41. For the record : neither Shellpoint nor the CFPB ever notified me of any response to my 1st complaint against Shellpoint. <P/>42. Though the CFPB did notify me of a Shellpoint response to my 2nd complaint against Shellpoint I am STILL unable to sign in to the CFPB website even after reporting this ( CFPB-known ) issue several weeks if not months ago. <P/>43. According to what the CFPB rep told me, Shellpoint AGAIN - assigned my account to yet ANOTHER rep aka a 4TH single point of contact AND provided me with a 5TH single point of contact in the same response. <P/>44. The CFPB rep also told me that Shellpoints response WRONGFULLY attempts to claim that Shellpoint supposedly doesnt accept pre-employment letters after 6+ months + AT LEAST 5 different REQUESTS by Shellpoint ( copy of recent Shellpoint request attached ) AND Shellpoints attorneys including in court in front of THE JUDGE WHO SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED ME TO PRODUCE AN ORIGINAL COPY OF MY EMPLOYMENT LETTER PER THE REQUEST OF SHELLPOINTS ATTORNEY. <P/>45. Cant make this stuff up. <P/>46. Only after Shellpoint : A ) failed to review my file in a timely or efficient manner + B ) failed to properly follow-through on my pending modification that was in the works via XXXX + the State of CT mediation + C ) instructed its attorneys to file a motion for strict foreclosure + D ) was exposed for its WAY-over-aggressive behavior - via complaint to the CFPB ( among a host of others ) did Shellpoint begrudgingly agree to ( supposedly ) agree to allow the State of CT mediation to run its course. <P/>47. But actions speak louder than words. <P/>48. Shellpoint has disrespected the State of CT mediation process by routinely attempting to circumnavigate it via sending its redundant and/or inappropriate requests to me directly as opposed to honoring the mediation process by making any-such requests via mediation. <P/>49. The only viable explanation for such behavior is that Shellpoint actually has no true intention of being reasonable and/or in expeditiously providing me with my long-overdue modification. <P/>50. Shellpoints most-recent canned letter ( again ) falsely claims that theyve made several attempts to reach me by phone. then goes on to state that they need to know what are my intentions for my home. <P/>51. Intentions for my home? Are you kidding me? With all-due respect to those with actual physical challenges : EVERYONE at Shellpoint ca n't be XXXX, incredibly XXXX, XXXX and/or XXXX XXXX - can they? <P/>52. Yet ANOTHER shining example of why FEDERAL MANDATES REQUIRE A SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT ( SPOC ). <P/>53. Not single as in : marital status. Not a SPOC du jour. And not XXXX XXXX from space ( still in search of intelligent life forms on planet Shellpoint ). <P/>54. A SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT PERIOD. <P/>55. This must change ASAP via an immediate modification with no further delays and/or time-wasting additional requests for any other information redundant or otherwise.

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