Consumer complaint received 2026-06-08 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — Foreclosure
Company: Shellpoint Partners, LLC
State: NJ

Complaint narrative:
My son XXXX XXXX and I ( XXXX XXXX ) are co-owners ( 50 % /50 % ) of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( loan # XXXX, owned by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Series XXXX ; serviced by Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing XXXX XXXX XXXX of NewRez LLC ) XXXX Shellpoint has committed multiple documented servicing errors and NewRez has now layered an independent dual-tracking event on top. 1. Payment misapplication via NSF reversal perpetual one-month lag. On XX/XX/XXXX, Shellpoint posted my {$2700.00} mortgage payment to the XX/XX/XXXX installment. Four days later, on XX/XX/XXXX, Shellpoint reversed it as " Regular Payment '' with a {$0.00} NSF Fee, providing no Reg E notice and no opportunity to cure. From XX/XX/XXXX forward, every monthly payment was applied to the prior-month installment, putting the account in a continuous 30-days-behind status. Shellpoint 's own XX/XX/XXXX statement Recent Account History documents this lag verbatim ( " Payment due XX/XX/XXXX : fully paid on XX/XX/XXXX '' ; " Payment due XX/XX/XXXX : fully paid on XX/XX/XXXX '' ). XXXX. Pattern repeat second NSF reversal on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, Shellpoint pulled a {$3100.00} XXXX and posted it to the XX/XX/XXXX installment ( per the lag ). On XX/XX/XXXX, Shellpoint reversed that payment in the identical manner type " Regular Payment, '' NSF XXXX {$0.00}, no notice. Same day, Shellpoint cancelled the auto-draft " because it is delinquent. '' This triggered the XX/XX/XXXX NOI. XXXX. NJ Notice XXXX XXXX to Foreclose with disputed cycle-start anchor. On XX/XX/XXXX, Shellpoint issued a NJ NOI demanding cure of {$6300.00} by XX/XX/XXXX asserting " XXXX XXXX XXXX : XX/XX/XXXX. '' We acknowledge owing the dollar amount Shellpoint asserts but dispute WHEN the cycle began for purposes of 12 CFR 1024.41 ( f ). Our XX/XX/XXXX XXXX cleared at XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX and Shellpoint never reversed it. The XXXX was issued XXXX days after we submitted a NJ XXXX / XXXX XXXX application on XX/XX/XXXX, contrary to XXXX XXXX 's XXXX servicer-pause obligation. 4. Bankruptcy status miscoding uncorrected after XXXX written disputes. Shellpoint 's XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX communications all treat the account as " in bankruptcy or discharged. '' Neither of us is in bankruptcy. The miscoding stalls loss-mitigation engagement and may have produced inaccurate credit-bureau furnishings. We have disputed this in writing on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX ; the bankruptcy disclaimer continues to appear on Shellpoint 's own acknowledgments dated XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. 5. Failure to provide a compliant Single Point of Contact. Our XX/XX/XXXX QWR specifically demanded a XXXX 's name, direct phone, direct email/mailing address, and hours per XXXX XXXX XXXX. Shellpoint 's XX/XX/XXXX loss-mit letter asserts a SPOC has been assigned but provides only the generic XXXX call center. No compliant XXXX has been provided. 6. Failure to substantively respond to XXXX within XXXX ( d ) window deadline missed by 13 days. We sent a Qualified Written Request XX/XX/XXXX ( certified mail # XXXX ; delivered XX/XX/XXXX XXXX AM XXXX SC per XXXX return receipt ). Shellpoint acknowledged XX/XX/XXXX within the XXXX window. The XXXX substantive-response deadline ( XX/XX/XXXX ) passed without any substantive response. XXXX NOEs of XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX were similarly acknowledged but not substantively answered. 7. Designed-in portal barrier to dispute submissions. On XX/XX/XXXX, when XXXX attempted to submit our supplemental XXXX via shellpointmtg.com after selecting " Dispute of XXXX '' in the portal 's " What is your question about? '' dropdown, the portal displayed a modal stating verbatim : " Did you know? We can not accept these types of correspondence here. Thank you for your understanding. For these types of correspondence please send a written letter to our designated address : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. '' Other dropdown categories ( Contact Us, customer service chat, payment-assistance requests ) are accepted ; only " Dispute of Debt '' the category that triggers RESPA 's strongest borrower protections is excluded. Screenshot available. 8. Dual-tracking via NewRez sales-arm refinance solicitation. On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX days before Shellpoint 's servicing arm acknowledged our XX/XX/XXXX supplemental XXXX and XXXX hours after that XXXX was physically delivered NewRez 's sales arm coordinated a refinance solicitation of both co-borrowers : at XXXX XXXX, NewRez XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( NMLS # XXXX, XXXX ) called XXXX 's personal cell, and the same day NewRez mailed individually addressed pre-disclosure refinance packages to XXXX and me separately under NewRez XXXX Loan # XXXX ( different from our servicing Loan # XXXX ). Neither of us requested this. XXXX. Hard credit inquiries without written application or consent. The XX/XX/XXXX pre-disclosure packages disclose hard credit pulls performed that day : XXXX XXXX on XXXX, XXXX XXXX on me. Neither of us signed an application, signed an authorization, or initiated the inquiry. Both inquiries will remain reportable on our credit reports for 24 months and raise FCRA permissible-purpose concerns under 15 USC 1681b . 10. Formal credit denial letters for an unauthorized loan application. On XX/XX/XXXX NewRez mailed formal " Statement of Credit Denial, Termination or Change '' letters to BOTH of us for Loan # XXXX a refinance application ( FHA, {$550000.00} loan amount, XXXX term, 6.500 % rate ) that neither of us applied for, signed for, or authorized. NewRez originated and " denied '' a complete application on our behalf without our knowledge. Denial reasons cited : " Insufficient Income for Total Obligations '' and " Insufficient Income for Mortgage Payments. '' Score-adverse factors disclosed include " SERIOUS DELINQUENCY AND PUBLIC RECORD OR COLLECTION FILED '' to our knowledge no public record, judgment, or collection has been entered against either of us, which suggests Shellpoint may have furnished an inaccurate tradeline that NewRez then relied on. Most importantly, Part III of each denial letter states verbatim : " Our credit decision was based in whole or in part on information obtained from an AFFILIATE or from an outside source other than a consumer reporting agency '' direct documentary admission that NewRez sales arm used Shellpoint servicing-arm affiliate data to underwrite and " deny '' an application we never made. The credit bureau used was XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ). XXXX. Repeated payoff-quote generation pattern. In a XXXX window ( XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX ) Shellpoint generated XXXX payoff quotes to XXXX, XXXX with the same effective date XX/XX/XXXX and minor variations. This mirrors a three-quote pattern in XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX, XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ) immediately following the first NSF reversal. We did not request these individually ; the frequency and timing concurrent with NewRez 's unauthorized refinance " application '' suggest automated affiliate-coordination rather than borrower-initiated requests. Federal laws Shellpoint and NewRez are alleged to have violated : 12 CFR 1024.35 ( b ) ( 1 ), ( 2 ), ( 3 ), ( 5 ), ( 11 ) ; 1024.36 ( d ) ; 1024.40 ; 1024.41 ( f ), ( g ) ; 1024.17 ; 12 CFR 1026.41 ; 12 USC 4901-4910 ( HPA ) ; 15 USC 1681b ( FCRA permissible purpose ) ; 15 USC 1681m ( FCRA adverse-action ) ; 15 USC 1681s-2 ( FCRA furnisher accuracy ) ; CFPB Act 1031, 1036 ( UDAAP ).

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