Consumer complaint received 2025-09-28 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — Foreclosure
Company: Shellpoint Partners, LLC
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint against Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing ( Shellpoint/NewRez LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing ) for repeated violations of federal and state consumer protection laws in handling my first-lien residential mortgage ( Loan # XXXX, secured by my primary residence at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, CA XXXX ) . These violations include improper and rushed denials of loan modification applications, dual tracking ( advancing foreclosure proceedings while reviewing complete applications ), failure to validate a disputed debt, false or misleading representations about application status, inconsistent assignment of a Single Point of Contact ( SPOC ), and harassing collection tactics that have caused severe emotional distress. Shellpoint 's conduct has forced me to file a lawsuit in XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX, filed XX/XX/year> ) seeking declaratory relief, cancellation of instruments, slander of title, HBOR violations, UCL violations ( Bus. & Prof. Code 17200 ), intentional infliction of emotional distress, and accounting. I am also considering XXXX XXXX bankruptcy to address this and other debts. Below is a detailed chronological account, with references to attached evidence. 
XX/XX/year> Loan Modification Application : In XX/XX/year>, I submitted a complete application for loan modification due to financial hardship making payments difficult. Shellpoint acknowledged the application as complete in writing via email from my assigned SPOC, XXXX XXXX ( Loss Mitigation Specialist ). However, shortly thereafter, Shellpoint issued a Notice of Default ( NOD ) and continued foreclosure proceedings. My SPOC advised me in writing to " ignore '' the NOD, implying the modification review would halt the foreclosure. This was misleading, as the foreclosure advanced anyway. This constitutes dual tracking, prohibited under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA, 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( c ) ), which bars servicers from advancing foreclosure ( e.g., recording notices or scheduling sales ) while evaluating a complete loss mitigation application submitted at least 37 days before a scheduled sale. It also violates the California Homeowner Bill of Rights ( HBOR, Cal. Civ. Code 2923.6 ), which prohibits dual tracking for complete first-lien modification applications. Shellpoint did not provide a 5-business-day acknowledgment specifying any missing information or give me 30 days to supplement if incomplete ( RESPA 1024.41 ( b ) ( 2 ) ). No appeal opportunity was offered before denial. 
XX/XX/year> : Inconsistent SPOC Assignment : On XX/XX/year>, XXXX XXXX emailed me stating, " I am no longer your single point of contact. Please call XXXX. Any representative here may assist you '' ( see attached " XXXX XXXX XXXX '' ). This violated RESPA 1024.40, which requires servicers to assign and maintain a consistent SPOC to handle borrower inquiries and loss mitigation options without confusion. Despite this, when I called Shellpoint on XX/XX/year>, representatives informed me that XXXX XXXX was still my SPOC, leading to further inconsistency and frustration ( see attached " XXXX XXXX '' ). 
XX/XX/year> : Debt Dispute and Cease and Desist : On XX/XX/year>, I sent Shellpoint a cease and desist letter disputing the alleged debt amount ( {$160000.00} in arrears ) and demanding full validation ( e.g., original promissory note, complete payment history, chain of assignments ) under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692g ). Shellpoint identifies itself as a " debt collector '' in all communications, including email disclaimers ( e.g., " This communication is from a debt collector '' in attached emails from XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ). Despite my timely dispute, Shellpoint has failed to provide validation and continued collection activities, including foreclosure advancement. This violates FDCPA 1692g ( a ) ( requiring validation notice ) and 1692g ( b ) ( requiring cessation of collection until debt is verified ). 
XXXX XXXX XXXX : Second Loan Modification Application and Improper Denial : On XX/XX/year>, I emailed XXXX XXXX seeking assistance due to ongoing hardship : " Good morning I called and they told me you are my spoc '' ( attached " XXXX XXXX '' ). On XX/XX/year> ( XXXX XXXX  ), she responded, " Thank you for reaching out. Im sorry to hear about your situation. Please advise what type of assistance you are looking for. '' Later that day ( around XXXX XXXX  ), I submitted a full loan modification application. Shellpoint acknowledged it as complete in writing : " We have received your complete application for loss mitigation assistance. No additional documents are needed at this time '' ( attached " XXXX '' ). 
Despite this acknowledgment, XXXX XXXX verbally denied the application on the same day ( XX/XX/year> ), and Shellpoint issued a formal written denial letter on XX/XX/year> ( attached " Denial letter.pdf '' ). Denial reasons included " insufficient hardship info, '' loan exceeding delinquency limits, failed Net Present Value ( NPV ) test, and reaching the maximum number of modifications allowed. This denial occurred just 2 days after acknowledgment, without a 5-business-day acknowledgment notice specifying issues ( RESPA 1024.41 ( b ) ( 2 ) ), without identifying any missing documents, and without giving me 30 days to supplement if deemed incomplete. Shellpoint treated the application as complete enough for review but denied it without proper process, violating RESPA 1024.41 ( c ) - ( d ) ( requiring full evaluation of complete applications and 30-day appeal rights ) and HBOR 2923.6 ( prohibiting denial without appeal opportunity and dual tracking during review/appeal ) .

The denial also contained false or misleading representations : If hardship information was " insufficient, '' Shellpoint should have notified me as incomplete and allowed correction, not proceeded to a merits denial. This violates FDCPA 1692e, which prohibits false, deceptive, or misleading representations in connection with debt collection.

Ongoing Foreclosure Advancement and Harassment ( XXXX XXXX ) : Despite the complete XX/XX/XXXX application and my 30-day appeal window ( ending approximately XX/XX/year> ), Shellpoint advanced foreclosure through XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX , with a trustee sale originally scheduled for XX/XX/year>. This is a clear dual tracking violation under RESPA 1024.41 and HBOR 2923.6 ( c ), as no notice of sale or trustee 's sale can proceed while a complete application is pending review or appeal. On XX/XX/year>, I called XXXX XXXX and spoke to XXXX, who verbally postponed the sale to XX/XX/year>, but I have not yet received written confirmation, creating ongoing uncertainty.

Shellpoint 's overall patternrushed denials without process, ignored debt disputes, inconsistent SPOC, misleading statements, and persistent foreclosure pressure despite violationsconstitutes harassing or abusive collection practices under FDCPA 1692d. This has caused me severe emotional distress ( e.g., XXXX, sleep disturbances, as detailed in my state court complaint ),
unnecessary legal expenses, and forced consideration of XXXX XXXX  bankruptcy when proper handling could have resolved this. 
Shellpoint 's actions appear willful and reckless, especially after my cease and desist letter. I have attached all supporting evidence, including emails from XXXX XXXX ( dated XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ), the denial letter ( XX/XX/XXXX ), cease and desist ( XX/XX/XXXX ), acknowledgment of complete application ( " XXXX '' ), email from XXXX ( if applicable, attached " email from XXXX '' ), and my verified state court complaint ( 139-page XXXX  filed XX/XX/year> ).

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation