Consumer complaint received 2018-07-31 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — 
Company: Shellpoint Partners, LLC
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX, Shellpoint mortgage communicated that I was not eligible for the standard modification due to the debt to income ratio. On XX/XX/XXXX, we appealed shellpoint decision. See copy of notice of appeal herein. On XX/XX/XXXX, the servicer provided copy of the NPV results as required by the treasury department. The NPV report reveals that the debt to income ratio is 35 %. As part of its contract with XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX 's must rely and adhere by the XXXX XXXX Flex Modification Reference Guide ( XX/XX/XXXX ).  Pursuant to the reference guide, we meet the eligibility for the standard loan modification. See attached referenced guide herein. For post-Modification ratio less than 80 %. The eligibility requirement is that the housing expense ratio must be equal to or less then 40 %. The servicer admitted in its correspondence that the debt to income ratio is 35 %, which makes me eligible for the standard loan modification. 

Some time in XXXX the servicer recounted their decision and was notified over the phone that the loan modification have been approved. I request proof of the trial modification offer. However the servicer claims that could not make the trial offer in writing only verbal. Pursuant to the XXXX XXXX Version 5.2. Servicers must provide sufficient notice of the Trial payment offer in writing. Servicer claims they do not need to make the offer in writing. Servicer has failed to abide by the loss mitigation request and are subject to sanctions. The record reflects that we do meet the eligibility for the standard loan modification. Servicer now claims that the investor is no longer XXXX XXXX. This statement is irrelevant, their letters reflect they proceed the request under the applicable treasury rules and therefore must must abide by the stipulated referenced guidelines. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, the servicer also communicated that the loan had been assigned and attached an assignment of mortgage. The assignment of mortgage is a void because it does not complied with Florida section 689.01, which requires any conveyance of real property to be signed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses by the person authorized to sign on behalf of the corporation. The assignment was not executed by XXXX XXXX. I have attached the referenced assignment of mortgage and also an unrelated assignment of mortgage purported by XXXX XXXX that was recorded in the XXXX county,  both signatures are identical to one another, which means that it was not executed by XXXX, the signature was copy and pasted. Florida Law requires that an instrument conveying real property be executed by the person claiming authority, the record reveals that the assignment was forged. The company who drafted and processed the instrument is non other then XXXX XXXX XXXX. In XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, entered into a assurance of voluntary compliance with the office of the Attorney General, State of Florida. XXXX agreed not to engage in Floridas deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Chapter 117, which governs activities of notaries, Chapter 668, Part II, Uniform Electronic Transaction. 

The instrument was forged in XXXX, which is a violation of the assurance executed on XX/XX/XXXX. We ask that the lender makes offer pursuant to the established guidance by treasury. The servicer has engaged in Floridas Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices and therefore sanctions are appropriate in this case.

Company public response: Company believes complaint represents an opportunity for improvement to better serve consumers
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation