Consumer complaint received 2025-12-23 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — FHA mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — Foreclosure
Company: Shellpoint Partners, LLC
State: IL

Complaint narrative:
FAX COVER SHEET FAX : XXXX FROM : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Illinois XXXX XXXX : XXXX Phone : XXXX TO : Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing XXXX Department XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX TOTAL PAGES ( Including Cover ) : XXXX RE : RESPA / Qualified Written Request ( QWR ) Rebuttal Loan Servicer : NewRez LLC XXXX Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing Property : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX Illinois MESSAGE Please find attached a formal rebuttal to Shellpoint Mortgage Servicings correspondence dated XX/XX/XXXX, addressing ongoing noncompliance with 12 C.F.R. 1024.36 and Shellpoints improper conditioning of its statutory duties. 

This fax is transmitted to preserve the record, document continued noncompliance, and ensure proper receipt by the XXXX Department. 

This matter is time-sensitive. 
Please acknowledge receipt by email. 

SENT BY : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Illinois XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX Phone : XXXX To : SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING XXXX DEPARTMENT XXXX XXXX XXXX, SC XXXX FAX : XXXX RESPA QWR REBUTTAL SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING Subject : CFPB Rebuttal Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing : Pattern of Contradictory and Misleading Responses ( XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ) Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX Team Re XXXX CFPB XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Servicer : NewRez LLC XXXX Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing Borrower : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX Illinois To Whom It May Concern XXXX This submission is a formal rebuttal to Shellpoint Mortgage Servicings most recent response dated XX/XX/XXXX, authored by XXXX XXXX, XXXX Department, and to Shellpoints XXXX written responses submitted to the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation ( IDFPR ) on XX/XX/XXXX, and to the CFPB on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. 
Shellpoints responses, taken together, demonstrate a pattern of contradictory factual assertions, selective disclosures, and evasive disclaimers, all issued by the same compliance agent despite repeated notice of document defects and inconsistencies. These defects were never cured prior to foreclosure and sheriffs sale. 


I. Same Compliance Agent, Repeated After Notice All XXXX responses ( XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX ) were authored or affirmed by XXXX XXXX on behalf of Shellpoints XXXX Department. As a result : Shellpoint can not claim lack of knowledge, clerical error, or misunderstanding. 
Repetition of disputed statements after notice constitutes knowing adoption of those statements. 
This establishes a pattern, not an isolated mistake. 

XXXX. Contradictory and Misleading Origination Assertions In the XX/XX/XXXX, response, Shellpoint states : This loan originated with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. 
However, Shellpoint has been repeatedly notified that : There are multiple mortgage versions associated with this loan ; XXXX version was reprinted and recorded after the Note ; The Note and Mortgage do not match ; The XX/XX/XXXX, mortgage is the disputed and altered instrument. 
Shellpoints continued assertion of a single undisputed origination datewithout addressing the existence of conflicting instrumentsmisrepresents the record and improperly adopts a contested document as controlling. 

XXXX. Admission of a Fatal NoteMortgage Discrepancy Shellpoint again admits in its XX/XX/XXXX response : XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and you signed the Mortgage However, XXXX XXXX name does not appear on the Note. 
This is not explanatory ; it is an admission that : The Mortgage encumbers the property using a party not obligated on the debt ; The Note and Mortgage are nonconforming ; Foreclosure proceeded on mismatched collateral documents. 
None of Shellpoints responses reconcile this defect, despite acknowledging it across multiple submissions. 

XXXX. Improper Reliance on QWR Scope to Avoid Substantive Answers Across its responses, Shellpoint repeatedly claims that inquiries regarding origination, document integrity, or chain of title fall outside the scope of a Qualified Written Request ( QWR ). 
This position is misapplied where : The servicer is actively enforcing the loan ; The servicer is relying on specific documents to collect payments and foreclose ; The borrower disputes the accuracy of servicing records and instruments used to service the loan. 
Shellpoint can not simultaneously enforce disputed documents and disclaim responsibility for their accuracy. 
Since XX/XX/XXXX, Shellpoint has failed to produce the servicing records expressly requested in my Qualified Written Requests under 12 C.F.R. 1024.351024.36, including but not limited to the full life-of-loan payment and escrow ledgers ; master servicing and sub-servicer transaction logs ; investor, trust, and remittance ledgers identifying all entities receiving or crediting payments ; the complete collateral file and identification of the current document custodian ; all servicing transfer and boarding records ; proof of ownership and authority to enforce the note and mortgage as of the date the foreclosure complaint was filed ; written explanations for each loan number associated with the account ; and a complete accounting and justification for all post-filing fees and charges assessed. This failure also includes Shellpoints refusal to reconcile or substantiate its admitted discrepancy that XXXX XXXX appears as a signatory on the recorded Mortgage but not on the Note, including the absence of any signed debt instrument evidencing his liability, authentic signature affidavits, notary journals or certifications for XX/XX/XXXX, or identification of any party who added or authorized his name post-closing. Instead, Shellpoint has issued only generic validation-of-debt correspondence, mischaracterized the scope of my requests, and deferred its statutory obligations. 

XXXX. Inconsistent Disclaimers of Knowledge While Enforcing the Loan In the XX/XX/XXXX response, Shellpoint states it does not have knowledge of the loan closing or other aspects of the loan unrelated to servicing, while also asserting detailed factual narratives regarding origination, borrower identity, payment history, and foreclosure authority. 
This is internally inconsistent. Once Shellpoint : Collected payments ; Evaluated loss mitigation; Referred the loan to foreclosure counsel ; Scheduled and completed a foreclosure sale ; it assumed responsibility for verifying the validity of the instruments it relied upon. 

XXXX. Improper Identity Theft Burden-Shifting Shellpoint now demands photo identification, a Social Security card , notarized affidavits, and a police report as a precondition to investigating fraud. 
My dispute does not allege random identity theft. It alleges : Document fabrication and alteration ; Non-matching loan instruments ; Fraudulent adoption of defective documents in servicing and foreclosure. 
Requiring law-enforcement reports under these circumstances is coercive, improper, and inconsistent with consumer protection standards. 

XXXX. Foreclosure Proceeded Despite Active, Unresolved Disputes Shellpoint acknowledges that : CFPB and IDFPR complaints were active ; Multiple written disputes were pending ; Document inconsistencies were never resolved ; Yet it proceeded with foreclosure and sheriffs sale while recycling the same disputed factual assertions. This reflects willful noncompliance and bad-faith servicing. 

XXXX. Requested CFPB Action I respectfully request that the CFPB : Reject Shellpoints XX/XX/XXXX, response as non-responsive and misleading ; Require Shellpoint to reconcile its contradictory statements across XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX ; Compel Shellpoint to identify which mortgage and note it relied upon to foreclose, and why ; Escalate this matter for supervisory review, given the repeated misrepresentations by the same compliance agent ; Preserve this rebuttal as part of the official CFPB record. 
Shellpoints responses demonstrate a clear pattern of contradiction, evasion, and reliance on disputed instruments. The XX/XX/XXXX submission does not cure these defectsit compounds them. 

Respectfully submitted, XXXX XXXX XXXX/ Complainant Date : XX/XX/XXXX 2025

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