Consumer complaint received 2026-04-27 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — Foreclosure
Company: Shellpoint Partners, LLC
State: LA

Complaint narrative:
Opening Statement : Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing ( XXXX ) engaged in prohibited dual tracking by advancing foreclosure while my loss mitigation review was still active. XXXX did not follow required RESPA and CFPB Regulation X servicing rules, did not properly evaluate my applications, and did not use reasonable diligence to obtain documents or communicate with me about what was needed. They failed to maintain timely communication or provide consistent points of contact, which made it difficult to obtain accurate information about my review. XXXX did not provide required written notices or written determinations and did not maintain proper servicing policies and procedures as required under federal servicing standards. XXXX ultimately foreclosed on my home XX/XX/XXXX. Evidence, including a voice recording ( too large to upload ), shows that XXXX offered two repayment options on XX/XX/XXXX but internally decided the same day to add additional legal and foreclosure fees before approval. XXXX internally lifted the foreclosure hold on XX/XX/XXXX and re scheduled the sale for XX/XX/XXXX without providing written notice. XXXX then waited 20 days after rescinding the offerand 13 days after lifting the holdto make a single unsuccessful call on XX/XX/XXXX, with no follow up. XXXX provided no written communication regarding these changes for 43 days, which does not meet the standard of reasonable diligence. ( See Exhibit A, Shellpoint Mortgage XXXX XXXX. ) Details : Beginning in XX/XX/XXXX, when I was approximately 2 months delinquent, I requested loss mitigation assistance. At that time, I was recovering from major shoulder XXXX on my right/dominant arm, experiencing severe pain due to a frozen shoulder and a diagnosis of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). This temporary disability significantly impaired my ability to complete paperwork. I informed XXXX of my medical and financial hardship, including that my income had been reduced to approximately 50 % of normal earnings. XXXX, an XXXX representative, assisted me in completing an application by phone. XXXX denied the request on XX/XX/XXXX, stating I was not in imminent default. ( See Exhibit B. ) XXXX should not have been able to determine that I was not in imminent default given that I was already delinquent, had a documented medical XXXX, and had clearly communicated that my income had been reduced by approximately 50 %. This determination was unreasonable and inconsistent with my actual financial condition. A borrower who is already delinquent can not logically be considered not in imminent default, and this determination contradicts both the facts and standard servicing practices. I made multiple requests for assistance, including a second application completed by phone with XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX due to my continued XXXX. XXXX again denied assistance on XX/XX/XXXX. ( See Exhibit C. ) I received a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX indicating that XXXX was assigning me a Single Point of Contact ( SPOC ), but the letter did not identify the individual. ( See Exhibit D. ) This omission undermined continuity of contact requirements. XXXX is required to exercise reasonable diligence in obtaining documents and evaluating borrowers for loss mitigation options. XXXX repeated denials, lack of follow up, and failure to provide clear communication indicate they did not meet this obligation. XXXX determination that I was not in imminent default was unreasonable and should not have been used to deny assistance, especially given that I was already delinquent, had a documented medical disability, and had clearly communicated a 50 % reduction in income. This denial basis is inconsistent with Regulation Xs requirement that servicers evaluate borrowers based on actual financial circumstances, not assumptions. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX refused to accept a partial payment, stating it would only complicate matters. XXXX also refused to waive foreclosure related fees when I requested this via email on XX/XX/XXXX. ( See Exhibit E. ) On XX/XX/XXXX, I attempted to reach my SPOC, who was identified as XXXX XXXX XXXX, but she was unavailable. I was told to send a Hardship Letter via email. ( See Exhibit F. ) I did not receive a return call from my SPOC until XX/XX/XXXX, when she offered only a repayment plan that would have doubled my monthly mortgage payment. After speaking with a supervisor who also lacked authority to assist, it became clear that neither representative had meaningful decision making authority. XXXX own valuation report showed I had approximately {$170000.00} in equity in my home, with a remaining mortgage balance of only {$99000.00}. ( See Exhibit G. ) This substantial equity should have weighed heavily in favor of offering loss mitigation alternatives. Less than three months passed between my initial request for assistance on XX/XX/XXXX and my discovery on XX/XX/XXXX that foreclosure was already underway. This rapid escalation was inconsistent with standard servicing timelines. After receiving notice on XX/XX/XXXX from the XXXX XXXX Sheriffs Office of a foreclosure sale scheduled for XX/XX/XXXX, I attempted to work with my SPOC but received little meaningful assistance. I contacted multiple agencies, including the Louisiana Office of Financial Institution, the XXXX Housing Corporation, and HUD related organizations. On XX/XX/XXXX, HUD certified housing counselor XXXX XXXX informed me via phone that she had the foreclosure sale placed on hold and that XXXX agreed to recalculate their initial repayment plan. ( See Exhibit H. ) This demonstrates that alternatives to foreclosure were viable. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX called me directly and offered two repayment options. I accepted Option 2, which required no payment until XX/XX/XXXX and had a grace period, which was specifically discussed, until XX/XX/XXXX. I expressly asked XXXX whether anything was required before that date and was told no. XXXX never provided written confirmation of the offer or any written notice that it had been rescinded. Also, by calling me directly, XXXX essentially removed my HUDcertified housing counselor from the process and did not inform me of this change. Because of difficulty communicating with my SPOC, I made multiple attempts to contact my HUD counselor on XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, but received minimal and insufficient response. ( See Exhibit I. ) Based on XXXX verbal assurance, lack of written notice of rescission, and the counselors limited feedback, I believed the repayment plan remained in place, that the foreclosure hold continued, and that my first down payment was not due until XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I learned for the first time that my home had been sold earlier that day when the purchaser left a handwritten note on my door. I received no written notice from XXXX or the Sheriffs Office of the re scheduled sale date. XXXX admitted they foreclosed while loss mitigation was ongoing and made only one unsuccessful contact attempt over a 43 day period. One call attempt does not meet the standard of reasonable diligence, particularly when it contradicts a prior verbal agreement. Also, under Regulation X, a proposed plan by the servicer is considered active review, and they should not have proceeded with foreclosure. XXXX admits by omission that they never sent written notice of the revised terms ; they only reference the call attempt. ( See Exhibit J. ) When I contacted XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, the representative stated they needed to revise the repayment plan to include additional legal fees and that my SPOC attempted to call me once on XX/XX/XXXX but could not leave a voicemail. XXXX could not explain why no written notice was provided. Throughout this process, XXXX used inconsistent terminology, multiple representatives ( I spoke with XXXX ), unclear caller ID ( only Shell on the XX/XX/XXXX call ), and delayed responses. The assignment of a SPOC should have been made in XXXX when I initially requested assistancenot after the foreclosure process was underway and legal fees began accumulating. XXXX also accelerated the foreclosure timeline in a manner inconsistent with Regulation X protections. XXXX did not reasonably accommodate my disability or provide timely assistance. While this may not constitute a legal disability violation, XXXX conduct exacerbated the challenges caused by my medical condition, created extra barriers for me, and prevented me from effectively participating in the loss mitigation process. In summary, XXXX violated loss mitigation and servicing requirements, engaged in prohibited dual tracking, failed to provide required written notices and determinations, and did not exercise reasonable diligence. These failures directly resulted in the wrongful foreclosure of my home.

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