Consumer complaint received 2016-04-05 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure — 
Company: Shellpoint Partners, LLC
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
ShellPoint LN XXXX Property Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX CA XXXX Borrowers : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, the borrowers filed bankruptcy. XXXX XXXX was servicing both the first and the second mortgages at that time. As part of the bankruptcy, the borrowers attempted to surrender the property, however XXXX XXXX did not agree to it. 

Servicing on the XXXX mortgage was transferred to XXXX XXXX, who XX/XX/XXXX suggested the borrowers do a deed in lieu, and promised relocation assistance under the XXXX deed in lieu program. Their single point of contact was XXXX. XXXX had told them in approximately XX/XX/XXXX that XXXX XXXX was not responding to their requests for settlement. A couple of months later, XXXX told the borrowers that XXXX XXXX had agreed to allow the deed in lieu. XXXX XXXX sent the borrowers a letter stating that they had not received the funds as agreed upon, and that the deed in lieu agreement was void. When the borrowers tried to follow up with XXXX, they were told she was no longer there, and someone would look into their situation. Right after this, the borrower got a notice that servicing was transferred to Shellpoint. 

When we, XXXX XXXX XXXX, started the short sale with Shellpoint XX/XX/XXXX, Shellpoint stated that the borrower lost the right to the opportunity to short sell as they had surrendered the property. CFPB Case # XXXX had to be filed in order for Shellpoint to allow the borrower to attempt a short sale. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX from Shellpoint Mortgage told me verbally the value on the property came back at {$180000.00}, and was submitted for approval with the purchase price of {$150000.00}. On XXXX XXXX XXXX told me the investor was requiring a net proceeds of {$180000.00} with a purchase price of $ XXXX- {$210000.00}. The BPO shows a value assigned as {$190000.00}. The investor has remained the same through this entire scenario - an investment group from XXXX XXXX identified as XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX also told me verbally on a recorded line that Shellpoint approved the offer at {$150000.00} however the investor did not. 

At no point during this entire treatment from XXXX different servicers, were the borrowers ever treated appropriately under the law. In fact, they were prevented from receiving relocation assistance which was due to them under the law by XXXX XXXX. Although the servicing changed hands several times, the investor has remained the same and under agency law that investor must be bound by any action any servicer takes, and this investor has engineered a zombie foreclosure on this property. The investor is essentially attempting to extort the new buyer into paying approximately {$20000.00} ABOVE their own stated market value. This shows bad faith in the extreme, by first promising the borrower something that they did not deliver ( and may I remind you that the servicer acts as an agent to the investor, thereby making any action done or promise made by the servicer required to be adhered to by the investor, punishable by the fullest extent of the law ), then by engineering a zombie foreclosure, then telling a borrower who is clearly still on title that they have surrendered their property, and now attempting to force a buyer to pay well above market value for the property. This has also exposed the borrower to homeowner association dues which will survive a foreclosure, by deceit and fraud. 

I highly recommend the investor take this offer, as I will be recommending the borrower sue Shellpoint and the investor XXXX XXXX for both actual and punitive damages. You CLEARLY have engineered this entire situation from start to finish, and this does constitute a zombie foreclosure.

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