Consumer complaint received 2025-11-24 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — An existing modification, forbearance plan, short sale, or other loss mitigation relief
Company: Shellpoint Partners, LLC
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
Please see attached rebuttal to complaint XXXX, outlining all the violations.

Thank you for reviewing my complaint. I am submitting this rebuttal because Shellpoint 's response contains significant inaccuracies, omissions, and unresolved issues. Their response does not address the core problems, and the servicing errors remain ongoing. I respectfully request that CFPB re-open my complaint for further investigation.

1. SHELLPOINT 'S RESPONSE OMITS KEY FACTS AND FAILS TO ADDRESS DOCUMENTED ERRORS Several major issues remain unresolved : ( a ) Payments were rejected and returned after my loss mitigation application was acknowledged as complete.

Shellpoint 's letter dated XX/XX/XXXX states my application was complete and foreclosure protection was in place. After that date : Multiple weekly payments were rejected One payment was returned by check ( XX/XX/XXXX payment rejected XX/XX/XXXX ) Additional payments attempted through my bank were rejected These payment rejections are not addressed anywhere in Shellpoint 's response.

( b ) Payment rejection pattern demonstrates bad faith Timeline of Shellpoint 's inconsistent conduct : XX/XX/XXXX - XX/XX/XXXX : Accepted my weekly {$170.00} payments XX/XX/XXXX : Rejected payments and referred loan to foreclosure attorney XX/XX/XXXX : Resumed accepting payments XX/XX/XXXX : Rejected payments again ( starting with XX/XX/XXXX payment, rejected XX/XX/XXXX ) This pattern prevents me from curing any actual delinquency and demonstrates Shellpoint 's bad faith in servicing my account.

2. XXXX ADMITS ( AND SHELLPOINT INHERITED ) SYSTEMATIC ACCOUNTING ERRORS FROM XXXX Shellpoint 's XX/XX/XXXX response specifically acknowledges errors made by the prior servicer ( XXXX  ) : " Errors were found in the construction of your XXXX-approved loan modification during XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX '' " Payments received between XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, XXXXprior to the modification being bookedwere not applied according to the modification terms, contributing to further delinquency '' While these errors occurred under XXXXXXXX XXXX servicing ( before Shellpoint took over in XX/XX/XXXX ), Shellpoint : Inherited an account with known errors Took responsibility for these errors in their CFPB response Has NOT corrected the errors Is attempting to foreclose based on a delinquency created by these admitted errors Within 8 months of taking over servicing ( XX/XX/XXXX - XX/XX/XXXX ), Shellpoint filed a Notice of Default without : Correcting the inherited accounting errors Providing accurate accounting of my payments Giving me fair opportunity to cure any actual shortfall Properly crediting my payments made under Shellpoint 's servicing CRITICAL : The alleged delinquency that Shellpoint is foreclosing on was created by XXXXXXXX XXXX admitted errors , which Shellpoint has failed to correct.

3. SHELLPOINT INCONSISTENTLY APPLIED THE XXXX MODIFICATION PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION IS EVIDENCE THE MODIFICATION WAS ACTIVE Although Shellpoint claims the modification was not implemented, their own records and my current loan terms show : My current interest rate ( 4.125 % ) is the same rate contained in the XXXX modification My current monthly payment amount ( {$660.00} ) matches the XXXX modification payment exactly This indicates Shellpoint did implement parts of the modification, contradicting their written statement. Partial implementation is a recognized form of contract acceptance and raises serious concerns about the accuracy of their foreclosure basis.

Moreover, I have been making payments in good faith reliance on the modification agreement since XX/XX/XXXX. 
4. PRINCIPAL BALANCE FIGURES ARE INCONSISTENT AND UNEXPLAINED Shellpoint 's letter lists contradictory principal balance figures : Loan history principal : {$110000.00} My loan history downloaded from Shellpoint 's system shows : {$110000.00} ( as of XX/XX/XXXX ) My XXXX modification agreement states : {$110000.00} Shellpoint 's XXXX proposed modification lists : {$120000.00} These figures contradict each other by more than {$10000.00} with no explanation.

Shellpoint provided no breakdown of : Which fees were capitalized Why the balance increased by $ XXXX despite payments made What calculations were used Whether misapplied payments from XXXX were corrected How the 13-year draw period error affected the balance This is directly responsive to my RESPA Notice of Error, yet they did not provide the required explanation under 12 U.S.C. 2605 ( e ).

5. SHELLPOINT CONFIRMS THE DRAW PERIOD WAS INCORRECTLY RECORDED Their letter states their system incorrectly showed the draw period ending XX/XX/XXXX, when it actually ended XX/XX/XXXX ( per my original HELOC terms : 60-month draw period from XX/XX/XXXX ). 
Shellpoint claims they corrected the draw period end date to XX/XX/XXXX after I brought it to their attention. This is STILL WRONG. My original HELOC agreement shows a 60-month ( 5-year ) draw period starting XX/XX/XXXX. Correct draw period end date : XX/XX/XXXX ( not XXXX, not XXXX ). 
This means : The loan was serviced with fundamentally incorrect information Payments may have been applied as " draw period '' ( interest-only ) when they should have been applied to principal Possible over-accrual of interest occurred The XXXX modification calculations may have been based on incorrect principal balance Their accounting is demonstrably unreliable Even Shellpoint 's `` correction '' to XX/XX/XXXX is still wrong by 5 years This directly impacts the accuracy of the principal balance, arrears calculation, and modification terms, yet Shellpoint provided no explanation of : How this error affected payment application Whether they recalculated the balance What my principal balance should actually be with correct payment application Whether the modification balance of {$110000.00} was calculated using the wrong draw period assumption 6. SHELLPOINT DID NOT RESPOND TO MULTIPLE REQUIRED RESPA/RFI ITEMS My Notice of Error and Request for Information requested : Full itemization of arrears with dates and amounts Payment-by-payment transaction history showing application to principal, interest, fees Itemization of capitalized amounts Explanation for conflicting principal balances Documentation related to rejected payments All internal servicing notes regarding the XXXX modification Complete accounting from XX/XX/XXXX to present Explanation of how bankruptcy trustee payments were applied Shellpoint did not provide or address these items. Regulation X ( 12 C.F.R. 1024.35 ) requires a substantive response to a Notice of Error. Their response is incomplete and does not satisfy their legal obligations under RESPA.

7. SHELLPOINT 'S DENIAL OF DUAL TRACKING IS CONTRADICTED BY THE PAYMENT REJECTIONS AND TIMELINE Shellpoint claims foreclosure proceedings were paused during loss mitigation review. However, the timeline contradicts this : XX/XX/XXXX : Loan servicing transferred to Shellpoint XX/XX/XXXX : Shellpoint refers loan to foreclosure attorney ( per their letter ) XX/XX/XXXX : Notice of Default recorded XX/XX/XXXX : Shellpoint acknowledges my loss mitigation application is complete After XX/XX/XXXX : Shellpoint rejects multiple payments XX/XX/XXXX : Shellpoint sends CFPB response claiming delinquency Rejecting payments while a loss mitigation application is under review : ( 1 ) Prevents the borrower from curing any delinquency ( 2 ) Causes the alleged arrears to grow ( 3 ) Constitutes advancement of foreclosure proceedings ( 4 ) Violates the dual tracking prohibition under California Civil Code 2923.6 and Regulation X 8. SHELLPOINT FABRICATED A LOSS MITIGATION APPLICATION- I MADE NO SUCH APPLICATION Shellpoint 's XX/XX/XXXX letter states I submitted a complete loss mitigation application as of XX/XX/XXXX. 
THIS IS CATEGORICALLY FALSE. 
In XX/XX/XXXX, my ONLY contact with Shellpoint was : - Making my regular weekly {$170.00} bill pay payments - Payments made through my bank 's automated bill pay system - No other communication of any kind I did NOT in XX/XX/XXXX : - Submit any loss mitigation application ( online, mail, fax, or in person ) - Call Shellpoint to request loss mitigation - Email Shellpoint about loss mitigation - Send any documents to Shellpoint- Authorize anyone to apply on my behalf - Log into any Shellpoint online portal - Sign any application forms I have bank records proving my only activity was routine bill pay payments. Shellpoint fabricated this application. Why would Shellpoint do this?

1. To create appearance of regulatory compliance : By claiming to 'evaluate ' me for loss mitigation, they appear to comply with regulations requiring servicers to consider alternatives to foreclosure.

2. To justify quick denial : They could 'evaluate ' the fake application and deny it ( XX/XX/XXXX ), claiming they considered alternatives.

3. To justify payment rejections : While 'evaluating ' the fake application, they rejected my payments ( starting XX/XX/XXXX ), increasing alleged arrears.

4. To avoid honoring my XX/XX/XXXX modification : By treating me as a new applicant rather than someone with an existing modification.

TIMELINE OF FABRICATED APPLICATION SCHEME : - XX/XX/XXXX : Shellpoint determines application complete - XX/XX/XXXX : Shellpoint sends letter acknowledging application and telling me to continue to make your monthly payments - XX/XX/XXXX : I make my regular weekly {$170.00} payment ( following their XX/XX/XXXX instruction ) - XX/XX/XXXX : Shellpoint REJECTS my XX/XX/XXXX payment. Shellpoint also cuts me a check for my XX/XX/XXXX payment ( 5 days after telling me to make payments ). 
- XX/XX/XXXX : Shellpoint denies fabricated application ( only 14 days later ) - XX/XX/XXXX : Shellpoint tells CFPB they're in compliance with regulations This is fraud. Shellpoint : 1. Fabricated an application I never submitted 2. Used it to create false paper trail 3. Rejected my payments immediately after acknowledging the fake application 4. Quickly denied the application they fabricated 5. Used this charade to advance foreclosure while claiming regulatory compliance I request CFPB investigate : 1. What application Shellpoint claims to have received XX/XX/XXXX 2. What documents they claim I submitted 3. How I allegedly submitted this application 4. Whether Shellpoint has any record of actual communication from me in XX/XX/XXXX 5. Whether Shellpoint has engaged in this practice with other borrowers Shellpoint can not foreclose based on fabricated applications and manufactured denials.

9. SHELLPOINT VIOLATED ITS OWN WRITTEN INSTRUCTION TO MAKE PAYMENTS Timeline of Shellpoint 's contradictory conduct : XX/XX/XXXX : Shellpoint sends letter stating : - My alleged application grants me protection from foreclosure - I should continue to make monthly payments according to your loan agreement XX/XX/XXXX : Following Shellpoint 's written instruction, I made my regular weekly {$170.00} payment via bill pay ( as I had been doing for years ). 
XX/XX/XXXX : Shellpoint REJECTED/RETURNED my XX/XX/XXXX payment.

This means : 1. Shellpoint instructed me in writing to make payments ( XX/XX/XXXX ) 2. I made a payment in direct reliance on that instruction ( XX/XX/XXXX ) 3. Shellpoint rejected the payment I made following their instruction ( XX/XX/XXXX ) 4. This occurred during the alleged 'evaluation period ' when foreclosure protection supposedly applied Shellpoint can not : - Tell me to make payments in writing - Reject payments I make following those instructions - Use rejected payments to justify foreclosure - Claim I'm not paying when they won't accept payments The 5-day gap between payment submission ( XX/XX/XXXX ) and rejection ( XX/XX/XXXX ) proves this was a deliberate, affirmative decision by Shellpoint to reject my payment during the evaluation period.

This demonstrates : - The evaluation was a sham with predetermined denial - Payment rejection was part of scheme to increase arrears- Shellpoint 's bad faith in servicing my account This XX/XX/XXXX payment was part of my consistent pattern of weekly payments I had been making for years. I was continuing my established payment schedule in compliance with both my XX/XX/XXXX modification and Shellpoint 's XX/XX/XXXX written instruction.

Shellpoint 's rejection of this payment - made in direct response to their written directive - is evidence of bad faith, breach of their own instructions, and advancement of foreclosure during a supposed evaluation period.

10. SHELLPOINT FAILED TO ADDRESS CRITICAL PAYMENT INFORMATION My complaint specifically detailed the payments I made, which Shellpoint completely ignored : I MAKE WEEKLY PAYMENTS I make payments of {$170.00} per week ( not monthly ), which equals MORE than the required {$660.00} monthly payment.

Looking at Shellpoint 's loan history statement : - Multiple {$170.00} entries per month clearly show weekly payment pattern - I was CONSISTENTLY OVERPAYING the required amount - Yet principal balance remained flat at around {$110000.00} for 20+ months This proves Shellpoint could not properly handle weekly payments and failed to : 1. Apply the extra to principal 2. Properly credit weekly payments as they were received 3. Notify me if weekly payments caused processing issues I was paying EXTRA to reduce my debt faster. Shellpoint 's system failure in handling weekly payments should not result in foreclosure.

TOTAL PAYMENTS MADE SINCE MODIFICATION ( XX/XX/XXXX - XX/XX/XXXX ) : My post-modification principal balance was {$110000.00}, which included all arrears, fees, and advances up to that date I paid {$16000.00} of the required down payments of {$15000.00} ( {$930.00} over required ) I paid payments totaling {$10000.00} between XXXX and when Shellpoint improperly stopped accepting payments.

The bankruptcy trustee made additional payments totaling {$7600.00} ( XXXX ) I resumed weekly payments on XX/XX/XXXX and paid {$4600.00} up until Shellpoint improperly stopped accepting payments.

TOTAL PAYMENTS : {$39000.00} According to modification, these are the facts, REQUIRED PAYMENTS : Down payment : {$15000.00} Monthly payments ( 42 months {$660.00} ) : {$28000.00} TOTAL REQUIRED : {$43000.00} ACTUAL SHORTFALL, including months of rejected payments ( if all payments properly applied ) : Approximately {$4400.00} This represents approximately 6-7 months of payments - a manageable amount that I should have been given clear opportunity to cure.

Instead, Shellpoint : Claims I am delinquent from XX/XX/XXXX Has not explained where my {$39000.00} in payments went Refuses to provide an accurate accounting Rejects my attempts to continue making payments I have paid {$39000.00} in good faith to perform under the modification. Shellpoint 's failure to properly apply these payments created the alleged delinquency.

11. ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS NOT ADDRESSED IN SHELLPOINT 'S RESPONSE ( a ) Harassment from Third-Party Solicitors Since the Notice of Default was filed on XX/XX/XXXX, multiple third-party solicitors have been calling my adult children regarding this debt. These unsolicited calls have caused additional stress and embarrassment to my family. While Shellpoint may not be directly making these calls, the filing of the NOD made my personal financial situation public record, leading to this harassment.

( b ) Documented Emotional Distress and Harassment The stress from Shellpoint 's conduct has caused severe documented harm : Emergency room visit for XXXX XXXX ( thought I was having a XXXX XXXX ) Ongoing physical symptoms including chest pains and ulcer-like symptoms Constant phone calls, mail, and door knocking Public humiliation from foreclosure notice posted on XXXX Harassment of my children Shellpoint 's response shows no acknowledgment of the harm their admitted errors have caused.

( c ) California Homeowner Bill of Rights Violations If Shellpoint questions whether California HBOR applies to HELOCs, California Civil Code 2924.12 ( d ) states protections apply to " any entity that seeks to foreclose on a mortgage or deed of trust '' on residential property. My HELOC is secured by my primary residence and therefore protected.

Shellpoint has violated : Accurate information requirements Good faith servicing obligations Dual tracking prohibitions 12. SHELLPOINT 'S PROPOSED " RESOLUTION '' IS INADEQUATE AND UNACCEPTABLE Shellpoint 's XX/XX/XXXX letter states they " waived legal and foreclosure-related fees totaling {$2500.00} '' with only a {$25.00} NSF fee remaining.

This is inadequate because : It does not correct the underlying accounting errors they admitted It does not explain where my {$39000.00} in payments were applied It does not credit my {$930.00} down payment overpayment It does not provide the accurate principal balance It does not rescind the wrongfully-filed Notice of Default It does not address their payment rejection pattern It does not resolve the 13-year draw period error 's impact Waiving fees they should never have charged in the first place does not resolve systematic accounting fraud and breach of contract.

13. SHELLPOINT 'S XX/XX/XXXX DENIAL LETTER PROVES THEY ARE NOT HONORING MY EXISTING MODIFICATION On XX/XX/XXXX, Shellpoint sent me a letter denying me for various loss mitigation programs, stating my housing debt-to-income ratio is out of the acceptable range.

This denial reveals the core problem : 1. I already have a valid, fully executed loan modification dated XX/XX/XXXX, with monthly payments of {$660.00} on a principal balance of {$110000.00}, acknowledged by the bankruptcy court.

2. I do not need new loss mitigation - I need Shellpoint to honor the existing modification agreement they inherited from XXXX. 
3. Shellpoint evaluated me as if I have no modification, determined I don't qualify for new programs, and is now proceeding with foreclosure.

4. This constitutes breach of contract. Shellpoint can not : - Refuse to honor a valid modification agreement - Require me to re-qualify for a modification I already have - Foreclose because I don't meet criteria for NEW loss mitigation Shellpoint 's position is clear : They do not recognize my XX/XX/XXXX modification as valid and binding. This is precisely why they have been misapplying my payments and rejecting my weekly payments that exceed the required $ XXXXmonth. 
I am not seeking new loss mitigation. I am demanding Shellpoint honor the existing modification agreement I have with my lender.

14. THE ISSUES REMAIN UNRESOLVED AND REQUIRE FURTHER INVESTIGATION At this time : My account history is still incorrect My XXXX modification has not been correctly applied My payments totaling {$39000.00} have not been properly credited My principal balance remains inconsistent and unexplained My arrears remain unverified and unexplained My rejected payments remain unexplained My draw period was misrepresented for thirteen years with no accounting correction Foreclosure proceedings continue despite unresolved servicing errors I am unable to make payments due to Shellpoint 's rejections CONCLUSION Shellpoint has admitted in writing to : Years of accounting errors ( XX/XX/XXXX - XX/XX/XXXX ) Misapplication of modification payments 13-year draw period configuration error ( XXXX, and even their " correction '' to XXXX is still wrong by 5 years ) Servicing errors requiring " corrections '' Despite these admissions, they have not corrected my account and continue to pursue foreclosure based on a delinquency THEY CREATED through their own errors.

I have paid {$39000.00} in good faith to perform under my modification agreement, making WEEKLY payments exceeding the required $ XXXX/month. I should not lose my home because Shellpoint failed to properly account for my payments.

Additionally, Shellpoint fabricated a loss mitigation application I never submitted, then rejected my payments while claiming to " evaluate '' me, then denied the fabricated application - all while refusing to honor my valid XX/XX/XXXX modification agreement.

The issues raised in my original complaint remain completely unresolved. Shellpoint 's response does not satisfy their obligations under RESPA and does not provide the accurate accounting I am legally entitled to receive.

I respectfully request CFPB 's continued oversight of this matter, as Shellpoint 's conduct has caused severe financial and emotional hardship for me and my family.

Thank you for your attention to this serious matter.

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