Consumer complaint received 2025-06-18 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan
Company: Shellpoint Partners, LLC
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
Consumer Name : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  New Loan Number : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Property Address XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, GA XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Servicer : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Investor Claimed XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXomplaint Summary : Fraudulent Assignment of Mortgage ( Filed XX/XX/XXXX ) Assignment purports to transfer mortgage from XXXX as nominee for XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Trustee for XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
Problems identified : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) is listed as inactive. 
- XXXX XXXX XXXX was identified as VP oXXXX XXXX but XXXX  could not confirm her authorization. 
- Assignment was prepared by XXXX XXXX XXXX, a company linked to robo-signing scandals. 
- XXXX XXXX XXXX was terminated in XXXX, yet the assignment was filed in XXXX. 
- Georgia law ( O.C.G.A. 44-14-162 ( b ) ) requires a valid, identifiable holder of the security deed. 
Multiple Investor Confusion and Lack of Chain of Title Shellpoint stated in prior communications that the loan has 'multiple investors ' and 'no single owner. ' They now claim XXXX XXXX as successor to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as Trustee. 
No documentation has been provided showing how XXXX XXXX acquired any legal ownership interest in XXXX or evidence of trust reactivation. 
XXXX and XXXX previously serviced this loan. No written record of lawful assignment or endorsement chain from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was provided. 
XXXX XXXX on Defective XXXX Shellpoint continues to demand payment despite clear and documented title defects. 
The XXXX also requested a refund of payments made under protest to XXXX and Shellpoint due to the disputed assignment. This request was ignored. 
MERS still shows XXXX as the servicer. 
Prior CFPB Complaint Inadequately Addressed Shellpoints prior CFPB response ( XX/XX/XXXX ) fails to address : - XXXX inactive status and its implications under servicing guidelines. 
- Invalidity of the XXXX assignment. 
- Absence of documentation showing XXXX Trusts ownership. 
They claim 'we have been unable to determine that any error occurred ' but admit no supporting documents were included. 

Furthermore, XXXX claims my loan was placed into a COVID-related forbearance or deferral plan. I never authorized or signed any such agreement. I request a signed copy of any COVID hardship or deferral agreement that XXXX alleges exists. If none exists, then XXXX XXXX have unilaterally altered my payment terms, which would be a violation of RESPA, TILA, and XXXX constitute fraudulent servicing practices. 

Additional Facts and Disputes : I received a letter from Shellpoint stating that my mortgage loan was removed from the XXXX system due to delinquency. However, XXXX  confirmed to me by phone that they do not provide public access to this deactivation timeline and that only the servicer can initiate deactivation. I dispute the legitimacy of this explanation and request that Shellpoint provide proof of when and by whom the deactivation was requested and why.

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