Consumer complaint received 2026-04-29 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Escrow, taxes, or insurance
Company: Shellpoint Partners, LLC

Complaint narrative:
I submit this statement with the purpose of updating and supplementing my previous complaint against Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing ( Newrez LLC ), due to the non-delivery of the escrow refund in the amount of {$7000.00}, associated with loan account number XXXX. At this point, the situation goes beyond a mere delay. The documented history demonstrates a recurring pattern of accounting inconsistencies, failed payment attempts, contradictory information, and systemic failures that, to date, have prevented the effective delivery of funds that Shellpoint itself acknowledges as owed. Regarding the chronology of events and identified inconsistencies, it is noted that in XX/XX/XXXX, an escrow surplus in the amount of {$7000.00} was identified. On XX/XX/XXXX, a first check was issued, which was not received. On XX/XX/XXXX, I formally reported the non-receipt and requested reissuance. On XX/XX/XXXX, Shellpoint stated that an ACH transfer had been requested ; however, on XX/XX/XXXX, a new check was issued. On XX/XX/XXXX, another check ( no. XXXX ) was issued, which was later internally canceled on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, the company claimed to have completed an ACH transfer. Between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, the loan history began to reflect successive entries of Escrow Disbursement offset by Escrow Only Payment, without any actual transfer of funds. On XX/XX/XXXX, a new check ( no. XXXX ) was recorded as issued, and on XX/XX/XXXX, Shellpoint confirmed its issuance, without providing any proof of mailing or clearing. There is also a significant inconsistency regarding authorization for electronic transfer ( ACH ). On XX/XX/XXXX, I authorized the refund via ACH through Shellpoints own online portal, selecting my XXXX XXXX XXXX account, and the system confirmed the operation. However, on XX/XX/XXXX, I was again prompted to authorize the same procedure, requiring a new selection and confirmation of the same bank account. This circumstance clearly demonstrates that the previously granted authorization was not properly recorded or maintained by the system, or alternatively, that the institution failed to execute the payment despite valid authorization. This directly contradicts Shellpoints claim that the ACH transfer depended on formal authorization, which had already been duly provided, and raises doubts as to whether any alleged electronic transfer was actually completed. With respect to the escrow accounting reconciliation, the loan history repeatedly shows paired entries of Escrow Disbursement in the amount of - {$7000.00} and Escrow Only Payment in the amount of + {$7000.00}. These entries cancel each other out, indicating internal reversals rather than completed payments. Therefore, there is no evidence of successful settlement, check clearing, or confirmation of deposit via ACH. It should be emphasized that Shellpoint has repeatedly acknowledged the existence of the escrow surplus and has made multiple attempts to issue payment, whether by check or electronic transfer. Nevertheless, no funds have actually been delivered, constituting a prolonged failure to remit an amount owed to the borrower. Furthermore, despite formal requests, including a Notice of Error submitted in XX/XX/XXXX, Shellpoint has not provided proof of mailing or delivery of any checks, evidence of clearing or deposit, a trace number, or confirmation of any ACH transfer, nor has it provided explanations regarding the identified accounting reversals. The response dated XX/XX/XXXX merely acknowledges the existence of the refund without substantively addressing why the payment has not been completed. The institutions conduct is contradictory, as it simultaneously claims to have completed an ACH transfer, requests new authorization for such transfer after the alleged completion, issues and cancels multiple checks, and records disbursement entries that are subsequently reversed. This pattern is inconsistent with standard servicing practices and indicates possible operational or systemic failures. It is also important to note that public information, including consumer complaints filed with regulatory agencies and records of civil litigation, points to recurring allegations involving Shellpoint/Newrez related to mismanagement of escrow accounts, delays or failures in issuing refunds, and accounting inconsistencies. These reports bear material similarity to the facts presented here, suggesting that this is not an isolated incident but potentially part of a broader systemic issue. Even if Regulation X ( RESPA ) were deemed inapplicable, relevant legal grounds remain, including breach of contractual obligations due to failure to return the escrow surplus, unjust enrichment through improper retention of borrower funds, failure in service performance and accounting management, as well as the potential characterization of abusive or deceptive practices under applicable law, including state statutes such as the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ( FDUTPA ). In light of the foregoing, it is requested that the CFPB require Shellpoint to provide definitive proof of payment, including evidence of check clearing or provision of a trace number and confirmation of settlement of any ACH transfer. If the payment has not been effectively completed, it is requested that the funds be immediately reissued via a properly confirmed electronic transfer, with written proof provided. It is further requested that a complete reconciliation of the escrow account be presented, including a detailed explanation of all reversals and incomplete transactions, as well as clarification regarding the systemic failures that necessitated multiple ACH authorizations and prevented completion of the refund. This situation has persisted for several months, despite repeated acknowledgment by the institution itself that the funds are owed. The combination of execution failures, contradictory information, and lack of transparency demonstrates a serious deficiency in service performance, warranting regulatory intervention.

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