Consumer complaint received 2025-12-01 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: NY

Complaint narrative:
Details of the Problem I am filing a formal complaint against XXXX XXXX and Newrez LLC ( dba Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, successor to XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ) for failing to inform me of mandatory CARES Act forbearance options, manufacturing fraudulent documentation, engaging in bad-faith servicing, illegally accelerating my loan during a federal foreclosure moratorium, and engaging in the prohibited practice of dual tracking. 
Background My mortgage loan with XXXX XXXX is federally backed by XXXX XXXX, making it subject to CARES Act protections and the federal foreclosure moratorium active until XX/XX/XXXX. Due to severe financial hardship from the COVID-19 pandemic, my loan went into default. When the loan was transferred to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX while in default, they became " debt collectors '' under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). Newrez LLC ( XXXX Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing ) is the successor to XXXX following an acquisition. 
Chronology of Events & Timeline Issues XXXX XXXX Failures ( Late XXXX XXXX ) : Inaccessible Home Preservation Specialist : My assigned specialist, XXXX XXXX XXXX was consistently inaccessible and failed to provide guidance on appropriate workout options ( Payment Deferral, Flex Modification, etc. ), which is a violation of servicer duties. The inability to contact not one, but two, XXXX XXXX home preservation specialists, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, is a significant issue and a severe failure to perform their duties. The very assignment of these specialists proves that I had previously reached out to the bank and formally requested assistance. 
Imposition of Unauthorized Fees : Home preservation fees were being charged to me during a time in which I was actively working with XXXX XXXX on a loan modification. This is a potential violation of servicer regulations that prohibit charging certain fees while a loss mitigation application is under review or a forbearance is active. 
Failure to Disclose CARES Act Options : Throughout my interactions, I was never informed that the immediate, mandatory CARES Act forbearance was a viable option, despite my documented hardship. The COVID-19 specific guidance under Regulation X of RESPA required servicers to inform borrowers about CARES Act forbearance options during live contact, a requirement XXXX XXXX failed to meet. 
Unviable Loan Modification Offer & Misinformation : The " Flex Trial Payment '' offer was discovered later in general paperwork, as I was never verbally notified about it. XXXX XXXX proceeded with this offer without proper underwriting or collecting current financial documentation reflecting my pandemic hardship. This offer did not align with XXXX XXXX COVID-19 Flex Modification guidelines designed to ensure sustainable payment reductions. 
Executive Office Misrepresentation : An executive case specialist, XXXX XXXX, provided explicitly inaccurate information, stating the trial payment was only " designed to bring the account current '' and not necessarily lower my payment. This misrepresentation highlights systemic failure or intentional misinformation. 
XXXX XXXX 's Written Admission ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : In their formal response letter, XXXX XXXX explicitly admitted : " We are unable to locate documentation from you requesting payment assistance or application. '' This is a critical admission : it confirms my requests for assistance were lost, ignored, or never logged into their system. It invalidates their prior claim that they removed me from assistance for " not responding. '' The combination of missed communication, misinformation, and lost documentation suggests a systemic problem rather than an isolated oversight. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Newrez LLC/Shellpoint Servicing Violations ( Post-Transfer and During Moratorium ) : Failure to Provide Debt Validation Notice : Following the loan transfer to SLS and initial communication, I was never provided a written validation of debt notice within the required five days, a clear violation of the FDCPA. 
Fraudulent Breach Letter and Forgery : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX generated a fraudulent breach letter associated with an invalid tracking number and an alleged forged signature on the certified mailing receipt. This letter was supposedly sent out during the federal mortgage foreclosure moratorium ( which was active until XX/XX/XXXX ). The servicer 's actions constitute an unlawful acceleration of my loan, as proper written notification was never validly delivered as required by law and the loan agreement, and was prohibited during that timeframe. 
Violation of Foreclosure Moratorium : The issuance of this breach letter and the acceleration occurred during the federal mortgage foreclosure moratorium ( which applied to federally backed loans like mine ), a clear violation of protections. 
Contradictory Reinstatement Quotes and Hidden Fees : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX provided a reinstatement quote in which it was explicitly noted with a " {$0.00} '' entry, indicating that no legal fees, property preservation fees, late fees, or any other charges would be added. However, these exact fees are clearly shown in my payment history. Furthermore, Shellpoint later provided me with a separate, detailed breakdown of property preservation fees dating from XXXX until XXXX. This discrepancy demonstrates deceptive practices and the imposition of unauthorized fees. 
Dual Tracking : I believe I may have also been a victim of dual tracking, a practice prohibited under CFPB Regulation X of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA ). Mortgage servicers are generally prohibited from proceeding with foreclosure while a loss mitigation application is pending review. This violation is further underscored by the improper assessment of home preservation charges while I was actively seeking assistance, which suggests the servicer was simultaneously working toward foreclosure and loss mitigation tracks. 
Relevant Federal Law Violations The actions described above violate specific federal laws and regulations, suggesting systemic failures : CARES Act ( Section 4022 ) : The servicer violated the mandate to grant forbearance upon request ( Failure to Grant Forbearance Upon Request ). They imposed fees and interest beyond what was permitted ( Imposing Unauthorized Fees and Penalties ). The issuance of a breach letter during the moratorium violated Section 4022 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( Violation of the Foreclosure Moratorium ). There was also potential Inaccurate Credit Reporting.

Regulation X of RESPA ( 12 CFR Part 1024 ) : The servicer engaged in prohibited Dual Tracking ( 12 CFR 1024.41 ) by accelerating the loan during a time when loss mitigation options should have been explored and by assessing home preservation charges during that period. The inability to contact home preservation specialists is a Failure to Exercise Reasonable Diligence ( 12 CFR 1024.39 ), a duty that includes informing borrowers of COVID-19 options during required live contact. The general handling of my case suggests a Failure to Provide a Timely Response to loss mitigation inquiries.

Violations of the CFPA : The " explicitly inaccurate information, '' " manufactured fraudulent documentation, '' and contradictory reinstatement quotes are examples of the Misrepresentation and Deception that constitutes an unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice ( UDAAPs ) under the Consumer Financial Protection Act. 
FDCPA : The servicer failed to provide a debt validation notice following the initial communication as required under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

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