Consumer complaint received 2025-11-15 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — VA mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Payment process
Company: Shellpoint Partners, LLC
State: TN

Complaint narrative:
Issue : Conflicting Corporate Addresses & Identities NewRez / Shellpoint / Rithm I am a XXXX veteran with a XXXX-backed mortgage serviced under the NewRez / Shellpoint / Rithm platform. Even at the most basic level Where is my servicer actually located and who is responsible? I can not get a consistent answer. 

A. Evidence of conflicting addresses and identities XXXX. Shellpoint envelope addressed to me I received physical mail from Shellpoint showing : Shellpoint, XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX Addressed to : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, TN XXXX XXXX. BBB XXXX for NewRez LLC The Better Business Bureau entry for NewRez LLC shows : Local office : XXXX XXXX XXXX # XXXX, XXXX, NC XXXX Additional info for headquarters : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, PA XXXX. 
XXXX. Public corporate information / search results for NewRez Public corporate information describes NewRez as having : Headquarters at XXXX Office XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX Washington, PA, Corporate location at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, PA, and Correspondence / error-resolution address as P.O. Box XXXX, XXXX, SC XXXX. 
The same information identifies XXXX XXXX as the parent company of NewRez. 
XXXX. Shellpoint vs. NewRez branding My loan has been handled under both Shellpoint and NewRez branding, with different addresses attached to each name, while XXXX own public disclosures describe NewRez as a subsidiary and integrate servicer revenues into XXXX business. 

As a borrower, I am facing : Multiple different headquarters across XXXX Washington, PA ; XXXX XXXX, PA ; XXXX, NC ; Different correspondence or error resolution P.O. Boxes in XXXX, SC and XXXX XXXX, FL ; and XXXX different operating names ( NewRez and Shellpoint ), plus a parent ( XXXX XXXX ) that profits from this platform while disowning it in CFPB responses. 

This is not a minor clerical inconsistency. The system is designed so I can never be sure which address, which name, or which entity is legally responsible for fixing my account. 



How this violates federal law and compromises the system I believe this conduct violates, at a minimum : XXXX. RESPA & XXXX XXXX ( XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ; XXXX C.F.R. XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ) Servicers must clearly designate where borrowers send Notices of Error ( NOEs ) and Requests for XXXX ( RFIs ) and must have policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure proper handling. 
Maintaining multiple, conflicting error resolution, correspondence, and headquarters addresses under different brand names ( NewRez, Shellpoint ) makes it unreasonably difficult for me to know where to send NOEs/RFIs and gives the servicer an excuse to claim it did not receive them or that they were sent to the wrong location. 
This defeats the core purpose of XXXX XXXX, which is to give borrowers a clear, working channel to dispute errors and demand corrections before delinquency and foreclosure occur. 
XXXX. XXXX XXXX provisions ( Dodd-Frank Act XXXX, XXXX ; XXXX U.S.C. XXXX, XXXX ) Presenting different addresses and corporate identities to different audiences is deceptive and abusive : To borrowers, I see a confusing shell-game of NewRez vs. Shellpoint vs. P.O. Boxes in several states. 
To investors and the SEC, XXXX presents NewRez/Shellpoint as an integrated, centrally-controlled platform generating consolidated revenue. 
This discrepancy is a classic UDAAP : it materially interferes with my ability to understand who my servicer is, where to send legal notices, and how to exercise my rights, while the parent and investors continue to enjoy the cash flows. 
XXXX. FDCPA ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX et seq. ), to the extent Shellpoint/NewRez act as debt XXXX If Shellpoint / NewRez qualify as debt XXXX, they must not use false, deceptive, or misleading representations, including the false representation of the character or legal status of any debt or use of any business, company, or organization name other than the true name of the debt XXXX business. 
XXXX between NewRez and Shellpoint names and addresses, while failing to clearly identify the true entity responsible for servicing and error resolution, risks violating FDCPA sections on misrepresentations and unfair practices. 
XXXX. State unfair and deceptive acts and practices ( UDAP ) statutes & mortgage-servicing laws Every state, including Tennessee, South Carolina XXXX North Carolina XXXX Pennsylvania, and Florida, has UDAP statutes that prohibit confusing, deceptive, or unfair servicing practices. 
Using multiple conflicting addresses and corporate personas to handle XXXX XXXX mortgage is unfair and deceptive because it obstructs my ability, and the ability of any reasonable consumer, to assert rights, cure errors, or prevent wrongful foreclosure. 
XXXX. SEC / securities-law integrity ( connection to XXXX ) Public information and Rithms own XXXX identify NewRez as a subsidiary of XXXX XXXX and XXXX the mortgage-servicing platform as part of Rithms consolidated business that XXXX equity, preferred shares, and XXXX compensation. 
This makes the address and identity chaos not just a consumer-protection problem but a system-level control problem : XXXX tells investors it XXXX and controls NewRez/Shellpoint and relies on XXXX XXXX XXXX flows. 
At the same time, the platform uses a maze of addresses and brands that prevent borrowers from effectively reaching the true responsible entity, undermining the integrity of the servicing operations that back the securities. 



Systemic impact & risk This is not just my confusion. If I, as a XXXX veteran with a XXXX loan, can not determine : which legal entity services my loan, which address will actually process a Notice of XXXX, and which company is accountable for corrupted ledgers and foreclosure threats, then every other borrower in this platform faces the same structural trap. 

The multiple headquarters and correspondence addresses show : A servicing system spread across several states and brands, A parent company ( Rithm ) that profits from the system but has allowed this fragmented address structure to persist, and A built-in defense : any time a borrower sends a compliant notice, the company can argue it was mailed to the wrong address or entity. 

This undermines : The entire XXXX XXXX XXXX for error resolution, State UDAP enforcement, and The reliability of the servicing platform that XXXX uses to support registered securities and insider compensation. 



Requested CFPB action ( address-focused ) XXXX. Require NewRez / Shellpoint / Rithm to : Designate and publicly disclose XXXX clear, uniform address for RESPA Notices of Error and Requests for Information for my loan, Confirm in writing which legal entity is responsible for servicing my loan and for correcting ledger errors, and Align all correspondence, billing, and collection letters to that single servicing identity and address. 
XXXX. Investigate whether the use of multiple addresses and trade names constitutes : A XXXX X violation ( failure to maintain reasonable policies and procedures for error resolution ), A UDAAP under the Consumer Financial Protection Act, and A violation of any applicable state UDAP or mortgage-servicing laws. 
XXXX. Coordinate, as appropriate, with : State regulators in TN, SC, NC, PA, FL, and any other states implicated by these addresses, and The SEC, regarding whether Rithms public representations about owning and controlling its servicing platforms are consistent with the fragmented and confusing address structure presented to borrowers.

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