Consumer complaint received 2025-08-28 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — VA mortgage
Issue: Closing on a mortgage — Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue with the loan closing
Company: Shellpoint Partners, LLC
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
CFPB Rebuttal to NewRez LLC Response Consumer Statement / Rebuttal : I respectfully reject NewRez LLCs response because it does not validate the debt as required by federal law and continues to ignore critical issues.

Failure to Validate Debt NewRez admits it will not provide the original promissory note, the name and location of the custodian, or the chain of assignments. This violates RESPA ( 12 U.S.C. 2605 ( e ) ), Regulation X ( 12 C.F.R. 1024.36 ), and FDCPA ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) ), which require a servicer or debt collector to validate the debt and identify the current owner. 

Borrower Misidentification and Spousal Joinder Defect The Note lists only me, while the Mortgage lists me and my wife. This mismatch means the lien is defective under long-standing case law ( Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271 ( 1872 ) ) and under Florida Constitution Art. X 4 ( c ) and 38 C.F.R. 36.4306 ( VA ), which require valid spousal consent for homestead mortgages.

Unclean Hands and Bad Faith By refusing to validate the debt but continuing collection and foreclosure threats, NewRez acts with unclean hands and in violation of federal law. A party can not enforce a debt it refuses to prove.

For these reasons, I ask the CFPB to recognize that NewRez has not satisfied its obligations under law, and to require NewRez to provide full validation, including : Original note and custodian certification, Recorded chain of assignments, Securitization records, and Corrected title insurance.

Until they do, the alleged lien and foreclosure activity are unlawful.

To reiterate : Reasons the Mortgage Contract is Void 1. Borrower Misidentification ( Material Alteration ) The Note lists XXXX XXXX while my full legal name is XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

Under UCC 3-401 and 3-407, signatures and names must match ; any material alteration voids enforceability.

Case : Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271 ( 1872 ) the note and mortgage are inseparable ; if the note is defective, the mortgage fails with it. 

XXXX. Unauthorized Addition of Spouse ( XXXX XXXX as Co-Borrower The loan application ( Form 1003 ) showed only XXXX as borrower. 

XXXX was added later on the Mortgage and Riders without application, consent, or underwriting. 

This is fraud and a material alteration under UCC 3-407.

It also violates 38 C.F.R. 36.4306 ( VA rules requiring voluntary spousal joinder ) and Florida Const. Art. X 4 ( c ) ( spousal consent for homestead must be voluntary and consistent ). 

XXXX. Mismatch Between Note and Mortgage XXXX signed the Note ; XXXX + XXXX signed the Mortgage. 

This creates a split obligation the debt and lien dont match.

Under Carpenter v. Longan and UCC 9-203 ( b ), no enforceable security interest attaches if the underlying obligation is defective or mismatched.

4. Lack of Mutual Assent ( Contract Formation Defect ) Contract law requires a meeting of the minds.

Borrower names varied ; Luisas inclusion was neither disclosed nor agreed at application.

Under Restatement ( Second ) of Contracts 20 and UCC 2-204, this is no contract at all.

5. Duress and Coercion at Closing I attempted to sign By : to show agency capacity ; both I and Luisa were told we must sign exactly as written or the loan would not close.

This constitutes duress, voiding consent.

Case : First Texas Savings Assn v. Dicker Center , Inc., 631 S.W.2d 179 ( Tex. App. 1982 ) contracts signed under duress are voidable.

6. Failure of Consideration / Illusory Contract The lender provided no proof of actual loaned funds ; the Note itself was used as the asset to fund the transaction ( securitization/rediscounting ).

Under UCC 3-303 ( value ), there must be consideration. Failure of consideration voids enforceability.

7. Defective Title Insurance / Lender Knowledge of Defects Master Closing Instructions required a Title Commitment naming lender as insured and matching the Note/Mortgage amount.

Because of borrower mismatches and defective spousal joinder, the lien was never properly insurable as first lien.

Equity sees this as proof the lender knew of defects and acted in bad faith/unclean hands. Precision Instrument Mfg. v. Auto. Maint. Mach. Co., 324 U.S. 806 ( 1945 ).

8. Failure to Validate Debt ( Statutory Violations ) Multiple QWRs under RESPA, 12 U.S.C. 2605 ( e ) and debt validation requests under FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) remain unanswered.

A party in dishonor can not enforce. Glazer v. Chase Home Finance, 704 F.3d 453 ( 6th Cir. 2013 ).

Continuing foreclosure threats without validation is bad faith and fraud.

9. Improper Assignments and MERS Registration NewRez admitted loan was placed into MERS with no recorded assignments when sold/transferred.

Florida law requires assignments to be recorded ( Fla. Stat. 701.02 ).

Courts have voided mortgages for lack of proper assignment. U.S. Bank Natl Assn v. Ibanez, 941 N.E.2d 40 ( Mass. 2011 ).

10. Violated Rescission Rights TILA rescission notices have been served. Under Jesinoski v. Countrywide, 574 U.S. 259 ( 2015 ), rescission is effective by notice alone.

Servicer dishonored rescissions by refusing to release lien or tender.

Under 15 U.S.C. 1635 ( b ), failure to honor rescission voids security interest.

11. Fraud in the Inducement Closing proceeded despite known discrepancies : borrower identity, spousal joinder, duress, and assignment irregularities.

Fraud vitiates all contracts. United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61 ( 1878 ).

Summary : The mortgage contract is void because : Identity mismatches ( Michael vs. Michael Adam ; Luisa added post-application ).

Note and Mortgage parties do not match.

No true meeting of the minds ( lack of assent ).

Executed under duress.

Failure of consideration.

Servicer dishonor ( RESPA/FDCPA ).

Improper assignment/MERS defects.

Failure to honor rescission rights.

Fraud and unclean hands.

Under equity and law, this renders the contract void ab initio, the lien unenforceable, and all proceeds from the transaction subject to restitution and disgorgement.

Previous response on CFPB show that certified mail documents were received that have evidence such as the loan application from closing with only 1 borrower and promise to pay i.e. the note with only 1 borrower. This is explicit prima facie evidence of knowledge of defective contract. Also, know that the note and the mortgage are inseparable per Carpenter v. Longan. If the servicer is not able to verify their own documents for invalidity due to not having these documents or are attempting to enforce defective instruments after being made aware, this constitutes dishonor, lack of standing, unclean hands, and intentional fraud. 

Respectfully, XXXX XXXX XXXX

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