Consumer complaint received 2026-04-06 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Mortgage debt
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Sued you without properly notifying you of lawsuit
Company: Shellpoint Partners, LLC
State: PA

Complaint narrative:
Shellpoint says only that HAF funds were applied to XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX payments and outstanding fees with zero breakdown by month, by principal, by interest, or by escrow. The Notes own Section 2 ( Application of Payments ) requires funds to be applied in order : ( a ) interest, ( b ) principal, ( c ) escrow. The NOE demands a month-by-month ledger for all 37 months covered, Error No. 1 The Loan History -Compliant The XX/XX/XXXX Loan History Statement has multiple fatal accounting deficiencies : [ Attachment ] Only goes back to XXXX XXXX missing 10+ years of payment history from origination Principal balance frozen at {$85000.00} for every single Shellpoint-era entry it never changes, even though payments should reduce it Ending unapplied balance of NEGATIVE ( {$21000.00} ) a negative unapplied balance is an accounting anomaly that is never explained and may represent misapplied funds Summary page shows Taxes Paid : {$12000.00} but the individual tax disbursement entries add up to approximately {$21000.00} net of refund a discrepancy of {$9200.00} [ Attachment ] Error No. 4 Tax Accounting Is Critically Incomplete Every tax entry in the loan history is missing the tax year, tax type, and jurisdictional authority. This is required under RESPA 12 C.F.R. 1024.17. Specific red flags identified : [ Attachment ] City Tax Bills totaling over {$2000.00} were paid for a property in XXXX XXXX which is NOT within the City of Reading. Township properties do not owe Reading City tax. These may be overpayments billed in error. [ Attachment ] A XXXX tax bill was not paid until XX/XX/XXXX nearly 3 years late. Who absorbed the penalties and interest? That amount must be removed from the Borrowers escrow deficit. [ Attachment ] A {$1000.00} XXXX XXXX refund was issued on XX/XX/XXXX, yet a separate payment of {$2100.00} for what appears to be the same tax was made on XX/XX/XXXX. This suggests a double payment was made and only partially refunded. [ Attachment ] foreclosure was filed with XXXX XXXX prothonotary XX/XX/XXXX, The XXXX school tax bill was paid 11 months late ( due XX/XX/XXXX, paid XX/XX/XXXX ). Late payment penalties are the servicers responsibility, not the Borrowers. And should have been paid from the escrow account that my payments funded from the forward mortgage assistance [ Attachment ] Error No.5 No Annual Escrow Analysis Was Ever Provided RESPA 2609 and 12 C.F.R. 1024.17 ( i ) require the servicer to provide an annual escrow account statement to the Borrower every year. No such statement appears anywhere in the record for any year from XXXX through XXXX. The {$9200.00} negative escrow balance at transfer can not be attributed to the XXXX without proof that escrow was properly collected and accounted for. [ law.cornell +1 ] Error No. 6 Self-Dealing Assignment of Mortgage The XX/XX/XXXX Assignment of Mortgage ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) was signed by Newrez LLC ( as Attorney-in-Fact for XXXX XXXX ) transferring the mortgage to Newrez LLC itself. This is a self-dealing transaction. The NOE demands the underlying Power of Attorney proving Newrez had authority to assign the mortgage to itself, and challenges the unbroken chain of title required to prosecute foreclosure. [ Attachment ] Error 7 Duplicated and Unsubstantiated Foreclosure Fees The loan history shows multiple identical FC Cost entries on the same date three entries of {$410.00} each, four entries of {$70.00} each all listed on XX/XX/XXXX. Combined with attorney fees, sheriff costs, title costs, BPO fees, and property inspection charges, these costs represent thousands of dollars charged to your account without a single invoice provided. Under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1144, these fees must be reasonable and documented. [ Attachment ] Error 8Dual Tracking and Trial Plan Issues The servicer offered a trial modification on XX/XX/XXXX at $ XXXX 65 % higher than the regular {$520.00} payment with no written explanation of how that figure was calculated. The offer was declared null and void ( sheriff sale scheduled on XX/XX/XXXX ), before the first payment was even due on XX/XX/XXXX. Meanwhile, a foreclosure sale was scheduled for XX/XX/XXXX. Under 12 C.F.R. 1024.41, pursuing foreclosure while loss mitigation options are pending constitutes illegal dual tracking. XXXX Taxes Not Paid Despite SLS receiving {$7200.00} in HAF funds that included escrow for XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, Shellpoints own loan history shows the XXXX school year tax ( due XX/XX/XXXX ) was NOT paid until XX/XX/XXXX a full 319 days late. There is no confirmed record in the loan history of any XXXX XXXX tax payment for XXXX at all. [ Attachment ] The XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX The XXXX letter dated XX/XX/XXXX is the clearest evidence of servicer error in the entire record. XXXX admits : [ Attachment ] 1. It made an advance for delinquent taxes meaning it found taxes already past due in XX/XX/XXXX, even AFTER the HAF payments 2. It then learned the taxes had already been paid and reversed the advance 3. It removed the collection of escrow and adjusted the payment [ Attachment ] XX/XX/XXXX, Despite payment of {$7200.00} sls received, intended to be applied monthly payments of {$520.00} escrow took over $ 600 monthly yet XXXX taxes unpaid for 319 days. And foreclosure filed XX/XX/XXXX which was premature and financially satisfied/paid and then the amount that was again claimed by the foreclosure. Making this completely unreasonable, irresponsible, illegal, and unethical claim against me. Shellpoint XXXX XXXX Admits Shellpoints XX/XX/XXXX response was supposedly a no error determination but it actually confesses the core problem without realizing it. [ Attachment ] Shellpoint admits that HAF ( Homeowner Assistance Fund ) payments of {$3600.00} were received in XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, but applied them toward the inflated escrow-adjusted payment amounts of {$1800.00} and {$1200.00} rather than the contractual payment of {$520.00}. The reason those inflated amounts exist is that XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) performed an escrow analysis in XX/XX/XXXX showing a shortage of {$11000.00}, which caused your payment to nearly triple overnight. A second analysis in XX/XX/XXXX reduced it to {$1200.00}. [ Shellpoint 2nd response ] This is the heart of the fraud pattern : an artificial escrow shortage was created, which inflated payment, and then HAF funds meant to keep current instead had funds were consumed by that inflation and could not cover multiple months as intended. Shellpoint states the following in statement : The last full payment recorded by Shellpoint was XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX

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