Consumer complaint received 2025-11-14 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — VA mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Payment process
Company: Shellpoint Partners, LLC
State: TN

Complaint narrative:
CFPB Complaint Improper Disclosure of Another Borrowers Financial Information by Shellpoint Subject : Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing sent me a letter that contained another borrowers personal and financial information, including foreclosure-related details. 

Summary of the Issue On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a mailed response from Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing regarding my loan. Inside the same envelope, physically folded together with my letter, Shellpoint included a complete compliance letter for a different borrower. This other letter contained the borrowers full name, address, loan details, foreclosure reinstatement status, exact payment amount, and dates of financial activity. I have no connection to this individual. 

This is an unauthorized disclosure of non-public personal information, in violation of : Regulation P ( 12 C.F.R. 1016 ) Privacy of Consumer Financial Information GrammLeachBliley Act ( GLBA ) Safeguards Rule and Privacy Rule RESPA Regulation X failure to maintain accurate servicing records UDAAP prohibitions unfair and irresponsible servicing practices Details of the Disclosure Shellpoint mailed a letter addressed to me summarizing their review of my disputes. When I opened the envelope, a second letter fell out. That second letter is addressed to Estate of XXXX XXXX XXXX / XXXX XXXX XXXX and includes : homeowner name property address foreclosure reinstatement information the reinstatement payment amount : {$9800.00} the date received : XX/XX/XXXX the foreclosure status and application of funds internal Shellpoint servicing assessments All this information was physically provided to me without authorization. 

Consumer Harm and Risks Receiving another persons detailed mortgage and foreclosure information demonstrates that Shellpoint has failed to safeguard customer data and may be mishandling internal servicing operations. This raises serious concerns regarding : 1. Data privacy breaches 2. Document-handling failures 3. Potential cross-contamination of servicing records 4. Accuracy of my own loan information 5. Whether my loan is being serviced correctly or securely This disclosure occurred during an active dispute involving inaccurate ledgers, conflicting escrow data, and unapplied funds, which makes this breach even more concerning. 

Requested CFPB Action I am requesting that the CFPB : 1. Investigate Shellpoints failure to protect nonpublic personal information under Regulation P and GLBA. 
2. Review Shellpoints document-handling practices that allowed another borrowers confidential foreclosure information to be mailed to me. 
3. Require Shellpoint to confirm whether any of my information has been improperly disclosed to other borrowers.

4. Require Shellpoint to provide a compliant, accurate, and complete servicing history for my loan, as required under RESPA Regulation X.

5. Determine whether Shellpoints actions constitute unfair or abusive practices under UDAAP. 

Attached Evidence I can provide photos of the envelope and both letters exactly as received, showing the other borrowers financial records included with my correspondence. 

Governance Liability and Supervisory Failure Under Delaware Law, XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Because XXXX XXXX XXXX is organized under Delaware law, its board of directors and senior leadership owe fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, good faith, and oversight under Delawares well-established governance framework. The systemic failures documented in Shellpoint and NewRezs servicing operations including the privacy breach where another borrowers foreclosure letter was sent to me, contradictory ledgers, conflicting escrow data, and unresolved Notices of Error fall squarely within Delawares oversight-liability doctrine. 

Delaware courts have repeatedly held that a board must actively oversee mission-critical business functions, and failure to do so creates liability. Mortgage servicing is a mission-critical function for XXXX and its subsidiaries. The failures documented here constitute clear red flags under Delaware jurisprudence. 



1. Delaware Oversight Liability Under XXXX In In re XXXX XXXX XXXX. Derivative Litigation, the Delaware XXXX XXXX established that directors breach their fiduciary duty to act in good faith when they : Fail to implement adequate reporting, information, and compliance systems ; Ignore obvious signs of regulatory or operational failure ; or Permit systemic breakdowns in mission-critical systems. 

Shellpoint mailing another borrowers financial and foreclosure documents to me is a textbook red flag signaling a breakdown in : document controls safeguarding of personal data internal compliance review supervision of servicing operations Under Delaware law, the XXXX boards failure to prevent or correct such failures is actionable. 



2. Delawares Expansion of Oversight Duties in XXXX In re XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) reaffirmed and expanded XXXX by holding that : Boards must actively monitor safety, compliance, and risk in mission-critical areas. 
Ignoring red flags or permitting known operational failures constitutes bad-faith oversight. 
When a company works in a highly regulated industry, its board must ensure stronger monitoring. 

Mortgage servicing is regulated under : CFPB servicing rules RESPA Regulation X GLBA and Regulation P federal privacy law state mortgage supervision statutes Shellpoints privacy breach, contradictory ledgers, and inaccurate escrow accounting show a collapse of controls in a mission-critical sector. 

Under XXXX, the XXXX board is exposed to liability for failing to supervise systems that affect borrowers homes, foreclosure statuses, escrow accounts, and private financial data. 



XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the Delaware court held that directors act in bad faith when they consciously disregard known oversight responsibilities. 

Shellpoint and NewRezs documented failuresincluding : systemically inconsistent loan records misapplied funds conflicting payment histories failure to resolve Notices of Error sending me another borrowers foreclosure reinstatement letter reflect a breakdown of processes that senior leadership and the board were required to monitor. 

Delaware law does not allow a parent company to disclaim responsibility for compliance failures inside wholly-owned subsidiaries, especially when those subsidiaries perform the companys core business function. 



4. Responsible Parties Under Delaware Fiduciary Law The following individuals hold fiduciary duties under Delaware law as directors or senior leaders of XXXX XXXX XXXX, and therefore bear responsibility for supervising Shellpoint and NewRezs operations : XXXX XXXX of Directors 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 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Chairman XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Chief Accounting Officer XXXX XXXX Chief Legal Officer XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX of Investments XXXX XXXX Head of Tax and Accounting and all senior leaders responsible for compliance, servicing oversight, risk management, and borrower-data security. 

Under Delaware law, these directors and officers are obligated to maintain proper oversight systems ensuring that the companys subsidiaries operate within legal and regulatory standards. They failed to do so. 



5. Linking Shellpoints Failures Directly to XXXX Under Delaware Law The operational issues documented in my evidenceincluding : contradictory portal balances unexplained escrow deficits unreconciled unapplied funds misreported payment histories repeated failures to honor Notices of Error and the unauthorized disclosure of another borrowers foreclosure reinstatement letter are not isolated incidents. They represent a systemic breakdown in internal controls that XXXX was legally obligated to oversee under Delaware fiduciary duty principles. 

Delaware courts have consistently held that a parent company can not evade responsibility for compliance failures in its subsidiaries when : the failures are systemic, the function is mission-critical, and the board either ignored red flags or failed to create oversight structures. 

Every one of those conditions is met here. 



6. Conclusion Under Delaware fiduciary law, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, the failures of Shellpoint and NewRez are legally attributable to the XXXX board and XXXX. The privacy breach alone indicates a collapse of internal safeguards. Combined with the contradictory loan records, mishandled payments, and unresolved servicing errors, these events demonstrate actionable governance failures under Delawares established oversight-liability doctrine. 

This section is suitable for direct attachment to your CFPB complaint, TNDFI submission, or any parallel enforcement packet. 

Supplemental Section : Evidence of Systemic Servicing Failure and Batch-Level Misprocessing In addition to the privacy breach described above, the documents Shellpoint mistakenly mailed to me include a full servicing analysis for another borrower ( Estate of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX This document is not mine, but the financial language, structure, and accounting logic used in that letter are functionally identical to the language Shellpoint used in its correspondence to me. 

This is not a coincidence. The similarities demonstrate that Shellpoint is not performing individualized servicing reviews. Instead, they appear to be relying on automated batch-level templates, mass-processing scripts, and uniform accounting waterfalls that do not accurately reflect borrower-specific financial reality. This is consistent with systemic failures previously documented in enforcement actions such as CFPB XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX CFPB XXXX XXXX XXXX, which found that servicers used automated systems and generic templates that failed to produce accurate borrower records or lawful notices. 

Identical Structure and Financial Logic The XXXX letter uses the same internal logic Shellpoint attempted to apply to my loan : We reviewed your account We applied your payment We determined how many payments it satisfied We resolved your delinquency/foreclosure status This template matches Shellpoints letters to me almost word-for-word, except that my letter contains none of the required financial detail because Shellpoint can not reconcile my ledger. This is evidence of : 1. A corrupted servicing database 2. Contradictory ledger records 3. Inconsistent escrow application 4. Impaired account calculations 5. Bulk-use templates that fill in details only when the system can calculate them This is exactly the type of operational failure that has triggered past CFPB enforcement under RESPA Regulation X and UDAAP. 

Systemic Failure Demonstrated by Comparative Analysis The XXXX letter includes : exact received amount ( {$9800.00} ) payment date ( XX/XX/XXXX ) number of payments that amount satisfied reinstatement status servicing rationale In contrast, Shellpoint refused to provide : any payment math for my account any explanation of unapplied funds any reconciliation of contradictory portal balances any clarification of payment reversals any accurate delinquency calculation The fact that Shellpoint can produce detailed calculations for other borrowers but not for me shows that my servicing file can not be reconciled by their system, a serious violation of RESPA 1024.35 ( b ) ( 5 ), 1024.35 ( b ) ( 11 ), and 1024.38 ( c ) ( 2 ), which require : accurate records proper application of payments maintenance of complete account information investigation and correction of servicing errors Evidence of Batch-Level Document Handling Failure Shellpoints accidental inclusion of the XXXX foreclosure reinstatement letter inside my envelope demonstrates : a failure of document segregation a breakdown of mailroom quality controls inattention to borrower confidentiality potential cross-contamination of account documents In combination with the identical templates and financial logic, this suggests that borrower servicing is not being handled individually but through mass-processing workflows, increasing the risk of : misapplied payments incorrect delinquency statuses erroneous foreclosure activity inaccurate payoff calculations compromised escrow data These failures directly violate the CFPBs servicing standards and have been treated as UDAAP violations in CFPB XXXX XXXX, CFPB XXXX XXXX, and CFPB XXXX XXXX. 

Request for Regulatory Review Given the evidence, I request that the CFPB investigate whether Shellpoint/NewRez/XXXX are : 1. Using automated servicing scripts that fail to produce accurate borrower-specific results ; 2. Relying on batch templates instead of individualized RESPA-compliant reviews ; 3. Producing contradictory, non-reconcilable borrower records ; 4. Failing to maintain adequate internal controls over document handling ; 5. Violating servicing standards under RESPA, Regulation X, GLBA, and UDAAP. 

The accidental inclusion of another borrowers financial analysis especially one structurally identical to my own letter supports my contention that the servicing system is fundamentally unreliable and incapable of accurately managing my mortgage loan.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation