Consumer complaint received 2023-09-07 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure
Company: Shellpoint Partners, LLC
State: MD

Complaint narrative:
i received HAF funds form state of maryland for my loan that is serviced by shellpoint. 
the haf funds were to help pay for issues I experienced due to XXXX  and the pandemic. 
I see many other complaints on CFPB state that Shellpoint has not applied HAF funds in many cases. 
There should a be class action lawsuit filed by everyone impact. 
Additional HAF funds were offered to be but again Shellpoint still hasn't replied to the state of maryland for this second round of funding which would pay any outstanding amounts. 
They pretend the state has not rpelied to them, but the sate records every inbound and outbound email, phone call, and snail mail. 
ALSO stop harassing me all the time while I am in process of getting additional CARES ACT HAF funding! They are ignoring state of maryland HAF rules " servicers should depending upon actual DHCD HAF processing times, to extend the pause in their resumption of demanding payments to ensure that borrowers are able to take advantage of HAF opportunities to save their home. Servicers must show proof og regular communication with DHCD to determine actual HAF processing times. 
Additionally shellpoint has violated They never signed d DHCD 's HAF Servicer Collaboration Agreement and has abided by its terms as of XX/XX/XXXX. 
Also I can not log into the account I created with shellpoint/ newrez via their replies on this platform. email address is XXXX but they wont send new password and keep using my XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account very fishy and sneaky. 

alsop the only contact they send me via mail was a blank page! found this blog posat also Shellpoint 's Missteps : A Deep Dive into HAF and Foreclosure Protocols Hey there, legal enthusiasts! As I navigate XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I've been diving deep into some of the latest court cases and legal controversies. One that caught my attention recently involves the servicer, Shellpoint, and their alleged missteps concerning the Homeowner Assistance Fund ( HAF ) program. Let 's break it down : Understanding HAF and 12 U.S.C. 1024.41 : For those unfamiliar, the HAF program is a form of loss mitigation. According to 12 U.S.C. 1024.41, servicers aren't typically required to delay foreclosure if they've complied with all requirements and the borrower has been delinquent consistently since their last application. But here 's where it gets interesting... 

The Non-Delinquency Curveball : Word on the legal street is that a borrower, after receiving HAF funds in XXXX, maintained a clean slate and wasn't delinquent at all times post-receiving the funds. This throws a wrench into the typical protocol and could change a servicer 's obligations. 

Shellpoint 's Alleged Blunders : Now, if rumors ( and recent court findings ) are to be believed, Shellpoint might have dropped the ball. They reportedly failed to notify borrowers about the initiation of HAF funds for states in XXXX. This oversight, if proven true, could mandate them to hit the brakes on the foreclosure process until a second HAF application gets the green light. 

State-Specific Nuances : A quick reminder for my readers - foreclosure laws aren't a one-size-fits-all deal. They can vary from state to state, and there might be specific HAF guidelines unique to each jurisdiction. 

Given the recent court case findings against Shellpoint, it seems they might be in hot water. If they indeed violated protocols, it could set a precedent for how servicers handle HAF and foreclosure processes in the future. 

As always, this is just my take as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. If you're facing a similar situation or need legal advice, always consult with a professional. But for now, keep your eyes peeled for more updates on this case. Until next time, XXXX XXXX

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