Consumer complaint received 2026-03-04 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Paying off the loan
Company: Shellpoint Partners, LLC
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
In early XXXX, my wife and I were in the process of selling our home, with closing scheduled for XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, we received a payoff letter from Shellpoint ( the XXXX XXXX ) stating that the payoff amount was {$140000.00} ( the XXXX XXXX ). The XXXX XXXX clearly indicated that the quoted Payoff Amount was effective for only a single XXXX XXXX, XXXX included a per diem amount of {$35.00}. Notably, the letter also stated that the next payment due date was XX/XX/XXXX, which was plainly incorrect and added confusion to the statement. Closing occurred as scheduled on XX/XX/XXXX. The title company remitted the Payoff Amount, including the per diem, on XX/XX/XXXX, for a total of {$140000.00} ( the XXXX XXXX ). Despite the Submitted Payment including the per diem amount, Shellpoint later informed us that a principal balance of more than {$1000.00} remained due. This assertion was confusing and unsupported, as the full Payoff Amount had been delivered. I contacted Shellpoint multiple times seeking clarification but was unable to obtain a clear explanation for the alleged remaining balance. Instead, I was simply told that the amount was owed and needed to be paid. Meanwhile, Shellpoint began assessing additional interest and late fees on the disputed amount. In XX/XX/XXXX, I filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau. On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a response from XXXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX Department ( the Compliance Response ). The XXXX XXXX stated that the XXXX XXXX was delivered on XX/XX/XXXX, with a good through date of XX/XX/XXXX. This characterization suggests that the payoff quote was effective from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. However, the XXXX XXXX expressly stated that the quoted amount was effective for only a single XXXX XXXX, XXXX. The XXXX XXXX further asserted that the remaining principal balance of {$1300.00} was due solely because the Submitted Payment was received on XX/XX/XXXX, rather than on XX/XX/XXXX. This explanation fails to account for the inclusion of the per diem amount in the Submitted Payment and does not justify the significant principal balance now claimed. After consulting counsel, my attorney contacted Shellpoint in XX/XX/XXXX and spoke with a representative for approximately XXXX minutes. During that conversation, he identified the errors in the XXXX XXXX, the single-day effective date, and the inconsistencies between the XXXX XXXX and the XXXX XXXX. After being placed on hold multiple times, the representative stated that pursuant to Section XXXX of the XXXX XXXX, The payoff amount is subject to our final verification once we receive the payoff funds. We reserve the right, except where prohibited, to correct any portion of this statement at any time. According to this explanation, the alleged remaining balance exists because Shellpoint changed the Payoff Amount after receiving the Submitted Payment. This explanation directly contradicts the XXXX XXXX, which attributed the balance to the one-day delay in receipt of funds. These conflicting justifications, combined with the errors in the original XXXX XXXX and the ongoing assessment of interest and late fees, demonstrate a troubling pattern of inconsistency and lack of transparency. To summarize : XXXX. Shellpoint issued a Payoff Letter containing multiple errors and confusing information. XXXX. Shellpoint failed to provide a clear explanation for the alleged remaining balance when initially contacted. XXXX. The XXXX XXXX provided a misleading or incomplete explanation inconsistent with the language of the XXXX XXXX. XXXX. Shellpoint later provided a contradictory explanation to my attorney. XXXX. Shellpoint continues to assess interest and late fees on a disputed amount. XXXX. The disputed reporting has negatively impacted my XXXX XXXX since XX/XX/XXXX.

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