Consumer complaint received 2026-04-01 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: TX

Complaint narrative:
Resubmission : This CFPB Complaint is being resubmitted by XXXX XXXX only because the Third Party Authorization allows XXXX XXXX to assist in this manner has not been processed yet, which was emailed on XX/XX/XXXX. I will be over-nighting the Third Party Authorization to ShellPoint New Rez. Before we begin, it has just been brought to our attention that ShellPoint New Rezs legal department and legal counsel for this matter is XXXX XXXX XXXX. The esteemed law firm that has an outstanding reputation and whom I have dealt with in the past. It is not possible for XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX to serve as both the Trustee and serve as the legal counsel for the lender to this matter. This I do not believe to be true, albeit the borrower has never received a Notice of Trustee Sale paperwork which would reveal this disclosure. Not only is this unethical professional conduct, but it serves as a substantial conflict of interest. Therefore I believe this to be an error. This complaint is premised upon a lack of good faith and ethical conduct. It has taken over 1 year 12 to obtain a loan workout packet supported by only one piece of correspondence & workout application received from ShellPoint/New Rez to borrower, XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, XXXXcorrespondence attached. The workout packet was completed and received by ShellPoint/New Rez on XX/XX/XXXX ( tracking number attached ). On XX/XX/XXXX, we were informed by a ShellPoint/New Rez supervisor that the borrower 's workout packet is in review for investor approval the morning of XX/XX/XXXX. The foreclosure was scheduled on XX/XX/XXXX, but per our conversation with ShellPoint/New Rez supervisor, ( name intentionally deleted '' ) this created dual tracking for which the supervisor intended to initiate a complaint. on XX/XX/XXXX. Today on XX/XX/XXXX, we were informed that there was no review of the workout packet, as they were waiting for the investor to review the file, and that the XX/XX/XXXX sale date would proceed since the investor had not reviewed, withstanding correspondence from ShellPoint/New Rez that the workout packet was completed for over 2 weeks, and contrary to what we were informed by the supervisor. The extended verified factual version is below. Fact : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Delay by ShellPoint New Rez : Attached is correspondence from borrower requesting confirmation of verification from ShellPoint to be authorized to speak on behalf of the Estate of XXXX XXXX for 2 months, albeit confirmation was made by predecessor Caliber Home Loans, see the attached correspondence. XX/XX/XXXX : According to XXXX XXXX XXXX ( concerning our XX/XX/XXXX conversation ) with ShellPoint/New Rez, the borrower was denied a loan modification. Borrower never completed a workout packet nor did she provide financials over the phone. We requested verification of this denial from the supervisor, since the borrower never received a denial letter. Fact : From XXXX of XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX : Workout Packet Submitted to Borrower for the First time, specifically confirming the past due amount, assigning a Point of Contact and exploring workout options. Please see the attached correspondence from ShellPoint/New Rez was dated on XX/XX/XXXX. Fact : Communication with Supervisor On XX/XX/XXXX. We spoke with a supervisor to express the delay in the workout process. We were specifically informed that the loan modification packet went in for review the morning of XX/XX/XXXX. Supervisor, confirmed the sale date was still continuing, but after I mentioned the concept of dual tracking, he agreed to file a complaint concerning the continuance of the sale date. Dual Tracking is Defined As : Dual tracking occurs when a lender agrees to work with a homeowner on loss mitigationsuch as a loan modification or repayment planwhile simultaneously moving forward with foreclosure proceedings. This practice puts homeowners in a difficult position, as they may believe they are on the path to saving their home, only to find that the bank is still pushing forward with foreclosure behind the scenes. Dual tracking is prohibited under Regulation X of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA ). Regulation X, specifically Section 1024.41, outlines the requirements for loss mitigation procedures. It prohibits servicers from initiating or proceeding with a foreclosure sale while simultaneously offering or evaluating loss mitigation options for the borrower. However, in practice, it still happens. The CFPB 's proposed regulation change would strengthen protections by requiring banks to haltor even avoid initiatinga foreclosure until the loss mitigation process is fully resolved. Instead of requiring a complete loss mitigation application before protections kick in, the new framework would begin protections as soon as the borrower requests assistance. Fact : On XX/XX/XXXX we called in to verify the postponement of the sale date request and was informed that the loan modification packet was still awaiting investor approval. Completely contrary to what the supervisor had mentioned. Conclusion This process has taken over 1 year to come to a work out resolution, for which in XXXX of XXXX I was given only 1 piece of correspondence to explore my workout options. Ive provided a complete workout packet, as confirmed by XX/XX/XXXX letter and to date, the investor hasnt even opened the workout packet, according to one representative. Yet the supervisor whom my advocate an I spoke to stated it was in review the morning of XX/XX/XXXX. Legal Declaration I XXXX XXXX, declare under the penalty of purgery, persuant to Texas state laws, that what I have said herein is the complete truth, nothing fabricated, and if I was called to testify, I could and would do so confidently. XXXX XXXX Electronic Signature XX/XX/XXXX

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