Consumer complaint received 2026-05-14 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — FHA mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — Foreclosure
Company: Shellpoint Partners, LLC
State: NJ

Complaint narrative:
I am writing regarding serious ongoing violations by Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing XXXX Newrez LLC ) on an XXXX mortgage loan. My husband and co-borrower, XXXX XXXX XXXX, passed away on XX/XX/XXXX. As his surviving spouse, I am a successor-in-interest by operation of law under 12 CFR 1024.31. Shellpoint has been aware of XXXXXXXX XXXX death and has been mailing correspondence to Est Of XXXX XXXX XXXX for years, yet has never properly confirmed my successor-in-interest status in writing as required by Regulation X. My daughter and son-in-law, XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX have XXXX residing in the property and handling mortgage payments since XXXX with my full knowledge and consent. As of XX/XX/XXXX I am also residing in the property. I have authorized XXXX XXXX to communicate with Shellpoint on my behalf. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Shellpoint 's own Annual Escrow Account Disclosure Statements document a pattern of escrow analysis failures that directly caused the current shortage. The XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Analysis Date XX/XX/XXXX ) is particularly revealing. On that statement, Shellpoint showed the prior year 's actual XXXX insurance disbursement at {$5100.00}, and projected the upcoming year 's XXXX insurance at the same {$5100.00}. However, the same statement 's XXXX XXXX section shows a pending XX/XX/XXXX XXXX disbursement of {$13000.00} meaning Shellpoint either knew or should have known at the time of analysis that the upcoming premium was nearly triple their projection. Despite this, Shellpoint projected only {$5100.00} forward, calculated an escrow shortage of only {$3100.00}, and set a new monthly payment of {$3900.00} effective XX/XX/XXXX far too low to cover the actual insurance cost they were about to disburse. This is a clear violation of RESPA 's escrow analysis requirements under XXXX XXXX XXXX. The consequence was predictable : Shellpoint disbursed {$13000.00} for XXXX insurance on XX/XX/XXXX while continuing to collect escrow payments calibrated to a {$5100.00} projection. The monthly escrow under-collection was approximately {$710.00}, causing the escrow account to accumulate a massive shortage throughout XXXX. By the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Shellpoint reported a shortage of {$18000.00} and increased the monthly payment to {$5100.00} but by then the shortage had already made the account impossible to bring current with normal payments. Even then, Shellpoint 's XXXX projection still assumed {$13000.00} in insurance going forward, meaning that when we fought XXXX XXXX and successfully brought the premium back to {$3700.00} effective XX/XX/XXXX, Shellpoint has still not performed an updated escrow analysis to reflect the correct amount, despite our repeated requests. The underlying insurance history : the original premium on this property was approximately {$980.00} per year through XXXX XXXX. XXXX stopped insuring log cabins, and the policy was moved to XXXX XXXX at approximately {$2500.00} per year. XXXX XXXX subsequently raised the premium to approximately {$5000.00} in XXXX, approximately {$13000.00} in XXXX, and approximately {$14000.00} in XXXX all without our knowledge, as XXXX XXXX sent no communications to us during this entire period ( a fact we only discovered when a XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX forced us to contact them directly ). Shellpoint, however, was the party writing the premium checks and therefore had direct knowledge of each year 's actual cost. Shellpoint 's obligation under RESPA is not contingent on borrower awareness ; it is triggered by the servicer 's own knowledge of actual disbursements, which Shellpoint failed to properly incorporate into its escrow projections. Loss Mitigation XXXX RESPA Violations XXXX last successful mortgage payment was XX/XX/XXXX. Since that time, we have repeatedly attempted to make payments by phone ( online payment was not available to us ) and have been told each time to hold on, while loss mitigation was being processed. Shellpoint effectively prevented us from making any partial payments while simultaneously failing to resolve loss mitigation. For approximately XXXX months, we have received repeated form letters ( most recently dated XX/XX/XXXX ) stating the inquiry has been escalated and that resolution will be provided no later than XXXX ( XXXX ) days from the date of the escalation. No actual resolution has ever been provided. These letters have been sent repeatedly with no determination, in violation of 12 CFR 1024.41 timeframes. Improper Trial Payment Plan and Loss Mitigation Waterfall Violation In XX/XX/XXXX, Shellpoint offered a trial payment plan of approximately {$5000.00} per month for XXXX, XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, followed by a permanent loan modification that would extend the loan term by an additional XXXX years at a higher interest rate. This offer appears inconsistent with the FHA loss mitigation waterfall under HUD XXXX XXXX. The original loan amount was {$380000.00}, giving a 30 % lifetime Partial Claim cap of approximately {$110000.00}. A prior Partial Claim of approximately {$78000.00} was used during XXXX, leaving approximately {$38000.00} in remaining Partial Claim capacity. Combined with a modest cash reinstatement payment, the remaining Partial Claim capacity is sufficient to cover the entire arrears balance with no loan modification, no term extension, and no interest rate increase. Shellpoint instead jumped directly to a XXXX term extension at a higher interest rate without first exhausting the Partial Claim option, and without ever disclosing remaining Partial Claim capacity to us. Refusal of Good-Faith Payment On XX/XX/XXXX, we contacted Shellpoint and offered to make a substantial good-faith payment of {$35000.00} against a total arrears balance of {$43000.00}. Shellpoint 's representative refused, stating verbally that they would not accept XXXX XXXX less than the total amount due. No written notice of this refusal or its rationale has been provided. This refusal occurred against a backdrop of months in which we were repeatedly told we could not make payments at all because loss mitigation was in progress. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX FHA servicing rules and 12 CFR 1024.40 require a single point of contact for borrowers in default. Our assigned XXXX, XXXX XXXX, stopped answering or returning calls approximately XXXX weeks before XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, we were informed that XXXX XXXX is no longer on the account and no replacement XXXX was provided. We have been unable to obtain a substantive response from anyone at Shellpoint as a result. Failure to Issue Written Loss Mitigation Decisions Despite XXXX months of review, no written loss mitigation decision has been provided identifying which FHA options have been evaluated ( XXXX Recovery Standalone Loan Modification, Partial Claim, Combination Partial Claim and Modification, etc. ) or written denial with appeal rights as required by 12 CFR 1024.41 ( d ) and HUD XXXX XXXX. Successor-in-Interest Violations Despite XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX over XXXX years ago and my status as his surviving spouse, Shellpoint has never provided XXXX confirmation of successor-in-interest status as required by 12 CFR 1024.36 ( i ), nor has it evaluated me for loss mitigation in my own name as required for confirmed successors. They have prevented us from making any payments on the account for over XXXX months.

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