Consumer complaint received 2026-06-25 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure
Company: Shellpoint Partners, LLC
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
Subject : STATUTORY RESPA VIOLATION COMPLAINT : Request for Manual Regional Specialist Review, Investigation of Systemic Overrides, and Deletion of Discrepant, System-Flagged Foreclosure Fees Company Name ( s ) in Complaint : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) / NewRez LLC dba Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing To Whom It May Concern, I am filing this formal consumer administrative complaint pursuant to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA ), 12 CFR Section 1024.36 ( Requests for Information ), and the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ), 15 U.S.C. Section 1639f. This dispute concerns mortgage loan account number XXXX, secured by the residential real property located at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, NY XXXX. The mortgage servicer, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( SLS ), and its successor-in-interest, NewRez LLC dba Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, have penalized my account ledger with an unverified cumulative total of {$2100.00} in third-party legal overhead and title searches tied to a supposed foreclosure action. A comprehensive title and litigation search executed via the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX confirms that NO foreclosure action, Summons and Complaint, XXXX XXXX, or Assignment of Mortgage was ever judicially initiated, filed, or recorded against me or the subject property by XXXX, Shellpoint, NewRez, or their counsel. A cross-examination of the servicers corporate statements against physical invoices and direct correspondence from their hired law firm, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), reveals irreconcilable accounting discrepancies, total failure of accurate record tracking, and a bad-faith circumvention of internal automated compliance gates : XXXX. Weaponized Admission of Deficient Documentation and Contested Service The servicer has historically attempted to validate foreclosure-related legal charges by asserting that a breach notice was processed and delivered. However, the physical records expose a severe lack of legal foundation. The underlying breach letter was actually sent out in XXXX of XXXX, while the certified mail receipt printout itself was produced on XX/XX/XXXX. Critically, the signature captured on that XX/XX/XXXX receipt is unequivocally not mine. Furthermore, Shellpoint has officially admitted the following under regulatory scrutiny in their formal XX/XX/XXXX disclosure : " Shellpoint unable to comment on services or matters related to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Our records reflect that the relevant correspondence was sent through the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and marked as delivered. Additionally, we are unable to comment on the signature associated with the delivery confirmation received on XX/XX/XXXX. The certified mail receipt previously provided represents the documentation available regarding the mailing of the Notices of Default and of Intent to Foreclose. '' Based on this specific timeline and processing history, the servicer has explicitly admitted on the record that they do not possess valid, legally compliant proof of mailing as required by law. Under XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX and Proceedings Law ( RPAPL ) 1304, strict compliance regarding mailing data and valid delivery is a mandatory, non-waivable condition precedent. Using their own words against them, the servicer explicitly concedes that an unverified receipt printout " represents the documentation available '' while simultaneously admitting they " are unable to comment on the signature '' or verify that I ever received or signed it. They are attempting to collect foreclosure-level legal fees based on their own clear admission of empty files and unauthenticated tracking records. An unauthenticated mail receipt process from XX/XX/XXXX, can not contractually or legally justify third-party law firm milestone fees and title charges assessed eight months later in XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX for an active " Judicial Foreclosure '' that was never filed in court. Without that statutory proof, those legal fees are completely unearned, legally baseline-deficient, and must be entirely deleted. 2. Invalidating Retained Counsel Charges for " Supposed Notices '' This complete failure of notice tracking invalidates the fees billed by their retained counsel, MRLP. The law firm itemized {$1200.00} for " new file setup, default tracking, and sending statutory notices, '' and an additional {$1000.00} on XX/XX/XXXX, for " Foreclosure Through Searches. '' The servicers position is fundamentally fraudulent. They have forced a borrower to absorb thousands of dollars in law firm bills for " preparing and sending statutory notices, '' yet Shellpoint 's own text admits they can not verify the delivery signature, and XXXX previously stated in writing on XX/XX/XXXX, that they were completely " unable to locate any foreclosure letters sent on or around XX/XX/XXXX. '' A servicer can not pass third-party counsel notice fees onto a borrower when they can not legally prove the notices were ever validly served or sent. 3. The Material Billing Discrepancy Between Servicer and Counsel According to the official XXXX transaction ledger breakdown, the servicer passed down a cumulative total of {$2100.00} across four distinct ledger items : XX/XX/XXXX : {$170.00} ( Fee Billed - Attorney Fees ) XX/XX/XXXX : {$1000.00} ( Fee Billed - Attorney Fees/ XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XX/XX/XXXX : {$420.00} ( Fee Billed - Attorney Fees/ MRLP Invoice XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX : {$460.00} ( Fee Billed - Title Search ) However, direct correspondence with the law firm on XX/XX/XXXX reveals that the actual underlying costs calculated by the firm for these legal milestones totaled exactly {$1600.00} ( {$1200.00} for file setup/notices + {$420.00} for title review ). When subtracting the separate {$460.00} XXXX invoice from the XXXX ledger, the servicer 's total reported legal fee balance is {$1600.00} ( {$170.00} + {$1000.00} + {$420.00} ). The servicer must reconcile how these distinct billing dates and separate corporate ledger inputs perfectly copy or obscure the law firm 's flat pricing structures, or confirm if arbitrary corporate markup was applied directly to the borrower 's principal balance. Under RESPA, a servicer is prohibited from masking unearned fees or arbitrary corporate markups. 4. System-Flagged Violations, Administrative Failures, and Intentional Disregard of Internal Controls The underlying third-party invoices submitted with this complaint present an undeniable pattern of bad-faith overcharging. This is not a case of accidental clerical error ; it is a clear demonstration that the servicer and their vendors know exactly what they are doing and are executing it anyway because they assume consumers have no method to hold them accountable : MRLP Invoice XXXX ( {$1000.00} ) : Invoicing software explicitly flagged this line item with a prominent red corporate compliance warning : " Possible Duplicate with Same Service Date. '' The firm 's software directly identified this as an unallowable double-billing error, yet they ignored the alert and forced it onto my ledger anyway. Furthermore, the document admits " First Legal Action : N/A '' and " Paid in Full Date : N/A, '' proving no judicial action was ever commenced. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( {$420.00} ) : This invoice contains a fatal compliance exception explicitly stating : " Exceeds Milestone Billing Allowable. '' The firm 's software openly told them that the required legal threshold to bill this fee had not been achieved. They overrode their own system gates to charge me anyway. XXXX Invoice XXXX ( {$460.00} ) : This invoice contains an error exception stating : " Exceeds Unit Allowable '' and lists the file type as " Non Judicial, '' completely falsifying concurrent XXXX legal invoices claiming an active " Judicial '' foreclosure. The servicer knowingly bypassed internal automated compliance gates and chose to push duplicate, excessive, and conflicting fees straight onto my active account tracking, counting on the fact that no one would audit their database trails. 5. Evasion of the Primary Judicial Action Demand The servicer 's documentation references Section 9 of the Mortgage ( " Protection of Lender 's Interest '' ) to claim a general contractual right to charge for attorney and foreclosure costs. However, they have failed to address the core dispute : they charged my ledger for " Judicial Foreclosure '' milestones and " Attorney Fees '' during a timeframe where NO judicial action was ever commenced. My public record filings search with the XXXX XXXX XXXX confirms that no lawsuit, Summons and Complaint, or Notice of Pendency ( XXXX XXXX ) was ever legally filed against my property by XXXX or Shellpoint. A contractual clause allowing for the collection of fees does not authorize a servicer to charge a borrower for court milestones that do not exist. 6. Established Corporate Pattern of Predatory Fee-Padding and Compliance Failures The manual overriding of internal system gates to force duplicate, excessive, and unearned foreclosure legal fees onto my ledger is not an isolated administrative error. It aligns perfectly with NewRez LLC dba Shellpoint Mortgage Servicings documented corporate track record of regulatory non-compliance and predatory fee assessments. Shellpoint and its associated entities have been the subject of numerous federal class-action lawsuits, FDCPA litigation, and state regulatory consent orders specifically concerning unauthorized account-padding, the inflation of corporate advances, and the misrepresentation of default debt balances. The servicer routinely counts on the assumption that consumers lack the forensic billing records or public court registries necessary to audit their statements. By forcing through MRLP and XXXX invoices that were explicitly flagged by their own automated compliance software as duplicate or excessive, Shellpoint has demonstrated a willful disregard for consumer protection laws. This established history of abusive servicing patterns underscores the urgent need for direct regulatory scrutiny to hold this entity contractually and legally accountable.

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