Consumer complaint received 08/31/2017 about Mortgage (Conventional home mortgage) with Shellpoint Partners, LLC (MA).
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage

Complaint: XX/XX/XXXX Im writing today over concerns Ive had with Shellpoint who is the servicer of the property I own at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX Massachusetts. This property has been in foreclosure and a sale was stopped in order for a loss mitigation review ( Short Sale ) XX/XX/XXXX this year, a short sale package was sent to Shellpoint for review. On XX/XX/XXXX we were told the auction would be postponed until XXXX to try to review the short sale package. At this point we were very satisfied. 
On XXXX we spoke to XXXX in Loss Mitigation at Shellpoint and were told Shellpoint needed to NET {$45000.00}. At this point we went back to the buyer and countered to get Shellpoint that amount. The buyer agreed to increase his offer to net that amount to Shellpoint. On XXXX we escalated a title issue to Shellpoint which we never heard back from. The estates show a multitude of predeceased children and how all their heirs conveyed their interest to the property. Somewhere there is a title policy tied to the XXXX XXXX and there is an attorney-agent already that has issued a policy. To date NO ONE from Shellpoint has responded about this issue. 
We submitted an increased offer of {$52000.00} to Shellpoint with a HUD and this was able to NET Shellpoint the {$45000.00}. We waited. 
On XXXX We spoke to XXXX XXXX who said SHELLPOINT MADE A MISTAKE AND THE COUNTER OFFER WAS {$75000.00}. That is quite a costly mistake. We had asked if an interior valuation was ordered as the house is in shambles. The foundation is sinking and cracked. It needs thousands of dollars of renovations. We were told it was not and we escalated again. 
On XXXX we sent an email to XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and Escalations regarding this crazy counter offer. Not one person got back to us. We followed up again on XXXX and nothing. In the meantime we were calling into Shellpoint as well, and then sent a third email on XXXX. On XXXX we received the Exterior appraisal and a letter from XXXX XXXX at Shellpoint, letting us know the investor of the loan, and stating that they needed to NET {$75000.00}, and it didnt matter what the assessment ( {$37000.00} ) came in at for the property. He included the assessment which I have a copy of. 
On XXXX we spoke to XXXX XXXX who said that Shellpoint would now order an interior appraisal. 
This gave us some hope, but it was also very confusing. If the exterior report came in at {$37000.00} and the counter offer was {$75000.00} NET then what would happen when an interior valuation was done? It would surely be less money, and maybe they would finally review my house for what the value truly was. 
On XXXX we reached out to XXXX again to ask WHY an exterior assessment would be countered SO HIGH if that wasnt what the value truly was. We did not hear back from her. 
On XXXX we were sent the INTERIOR appraisal. This showed the property was worth {$38000.00}. 
In XXXX the file was submitted to the investor for approval. We thought this was good news. We had to get a new proof of funds from the buyer, but that was the only hold up. OnXX/XX/XXXX and XXXX we followed up with XXXX to see where the file was at. On XXXX XXXX  indicated the value had been sent to their client for review. 
My understanding of this is it went to XXXX XXXX, XXXX for them to look at based on the above. 

We called in weekly and finally on XXXX had an update that the INVESTOR countered at {$80000.00}. 
This makes zero sense. Why would the counter be {$4000.00} more? Yes the interior was {$1000.00} higher, but not {$4000.00}. 
I do not know the workings of XXXX XXXX, which I understand owns XXXX XXXX, XXXX, but do they actually review their investments? In what world would something with two independent valuations stating the property worth UNDER {$40000.00} be countered double the amount? How does this help their investors? 
If this property were to foreclose, it would be a complete loss. They could never put it on the market to get {$80000.00} unless they were going to put thousands into it. 
On XXXX we reached out to XXXX XXXX, and didnt have a response. We called XXXX XXXX and left a message. We also reached out to XXXX at Shellpoint and XXXX XXXX on XXXX no one responded. We reached out again onXX/XX/XXXX to them and also reached out to XXXX again. So far NO ONE has responded to this. My last attempt was on XXXX. 
When a property owner buys a home, an appraisal is done, and the loan is typically capped at the appraisal amount. I can not buy a home that was appraised at {$300000.00} and buy it for {$400000.00} just because the seller wants that amount, so why should the reverse be any different? What are the laws regarding loss mitigation valuations? If a property value is {$38000.00}, why would a lender counter over double that amount? That would immediately put the buyer at risk. 
There is a HUGE issue here. Im going to be forced into foreclosure. Why would a servicer and investor even ORDER a valuation if they werent going to accept an offer from a buyer within a threshold of that amount? How is this good for anyone? Its not good for me the homeowner, its not good for XXXX XXXX investors, and realistically the only entity I see it good for is Shellpoint because they have wasted months and months and Im sure they get paid monthly to service the loan. So the longer this loan is on the books, the more money they must make. This ENTIRE PROCESS IS ABSURD! 
I would like someone to respond at this point and explain to me why Ill be forced to foreclosure for a property valued at {$38000.00}, which everyone knows is the value and yet the servicer is demanding {$80000.00}. There must be some regulation of valuations for people exploring loss mitigation efforts. It seems to me just about everyone loses out here. I would like it if someone would contact myself or my third party contact ( Listed below ) I would appreciate it. 

Sincerely XXXX XXXX ( owner of ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Massachusetts

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