Consumer complaint received 2025-09-10 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — Foreclosure
Company: Shellpoint Partners, LLC
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am XXXX XXXX, and my ex-husband XXXX XXXX ( aged XXXX, XXXX, recovering from a XXXX XXXX XXXX and recent XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) resides with me and remains on the loan. We are facing wrongful foreclosure on our home at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, CA XXXX, scheduled for XX/XX/XXXX, due to multiple servicing violations by Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing. Despite our eligibility for hardship modifications based on temporary income challenges ( XXXX 's $ XXXX Social Security and my slowed real estate business, expected to improve in 6 months ), Shellpoint has engaged in deceptive practices, ignored our requests, and violated federal mortgage servicing rules under Regulation X ( 12 CFR Part 1024 ). This has caused severe distress, including threats to our {$2.00} XXXX equity home where we've lived since XXXX and raised our children. 
Key violations include : Dual Tracking in Violation of 12 CFR 1024.41 : Shellpoint has prohibitedly advanced foreclosure while our loss mitigation applications remain pending and incomplete due to their failure to provide necessary information or evaluate under all programs. We submitted multiple applications for forbearance, modifications, and other relief starting in early XXXX, with the most recent in XX/XX/XXXX. Despite this, they recorded a Notice of Default on XX/XX/XXXX ( Instrument No. XXXX ) and scheduled the sale. Specific examples : On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX emailed to " disregard '' the Notice of Default during modification review, but they proceeded anyway. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX promised a 45-day postponement, which was later contradicted by XXXX XXXX  and XXXX XXXX XXXX with claims of cancellation. 
A XX/XX/XXXX CFPB response from Shellpoint was inadequate and ignored our pending requests. 
This violates the prohibition on foreclosure referral ( 1024.41 ( f ) ) and sale ( 1024.41 ( g ) ) while a complete loss mitigation application is under review. We have not rejected options, appealed denials, or failed trialsreviews are ongoing due to their inaction. 


Failure of Single Point of Contact ( SPOC ) in Violation of 12 CFR 1024.40 : Shellpoint assigned XXXX XXXX as our SPOC, but she has repeatedly refused to help, provide accurate information, or assist with loss mitigation. Despite multiple contacts ( e.g., calls and emails in XXXX XXXX ), she has not : Provided details on available loss mitigation options from the beneficiary ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX 
Accessed or explained our submitted documents/applications. 
Responded timely to inquiries ( e.g., no live response within a reasonable time, as required ). 
Coordinated to resolve our issues, instead directing us in circles or ignoring requests. 
In her latest email dated XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  ( attached as " nicloe latest email.pdf '' ), XXXX XXXX explicitly refused assistance, stating : " Unfortunately, forbearance nor a repayment plan is not an option. Additionally, you have reached the maximum number of modifications allowed for the life of the loan. You may need to look into outside resources to see if assistance may be available. '' This blanket denial ignores our pending applications, fails to evaluate our hardship eligibility, and does not provide reasons or appeal rights as required. It demonstrates a clear refusal to follow the law or help us avoid foreclosure, violating SPOC duties to assist with loss mitigation and provide accurate information. Furthermore, I forwarded this email to Shellpoint 's parent company ( New Rez ) and Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing for escalation, but have received no response, indicating systemic non-compliance. 


Failure to Validate Debt and Provide Accounting in Violation of FDCPA ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ) and Regulation X ( 1024.38 ) : We sent multiple debt validation letters, the latest received by Shellpoint on XX/XX/XXXX, demanding proof of standing and a full accounting. No response has been provided, preventing us from verifying the default amount or addressing it. The loan has three modifications ( XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ), but their calculations ignore superseded terms and a senior XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), a super-priority obligation under California law. This renders notices defective and misleading. 
Additional Servicing Violations : Improper notices due to name discrepancies : Documents use " XXXX XXXX '' and " XXXX XXXX '' despite our XXXX legal name change to XXXX, potentially invalidating service. 
Lack of standing : The XXXX assignment ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) to a XXXX securitized trust is void under XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. App. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ), executed by documented robo-signer XXXX XXXX XXXX No unbroken chain from originator ( XXXX Mortgage XXXX ) exists. 
Ignored over XXXX certified letters since early XXXX, violating general servicing duties ( XXXX ) and causing elder abuse concerns given XXXX 's vulnerability ( XXXX. XXXX. & XXXX. Code XXXX ). 
This aligns with Shellpoint 's history in class actions ( e.g., XXXX, XXXX ) and CFPB precedents like the {$24.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX settlement. 



These actions violate RESPA, Regulation X, FDCPA, TILA ( 1635 ), XXXX ( XXXX ), and Bankruptcy Code ( 524 ), linked to our prior discharges ( XXXX & XXXX, Case XXXX ). Shellpoint 's runaround, exemplified by XXXX XXXX 's refusal to help, has blocked refinancing, sale, or curing, risking wrongful foreclosure. 
What the Company Said When I Contacted Them : Shellpoint has provided inconsistent, incomplete, or no responses. For example, XXXX XXXX XXXX dismissed our concerns without action in her XX/XX/XXXX email ( attached ), refusing forbearance or repayment plans without evaluation or appeal options. Recent communications ( e.g., XX/XX/XXXX ) contradicted prior promises, and escalations to New Rez and Shellpoint yielded no reply. They ignore certified demands and regulatory obligations.

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