Consumer complaint received 2026-02-19 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — VA mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Payment process
Company: Rithm Capital Corp.
State: TN

Complaint narrative:
Retaliation and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX ( the counsel threat letter ). B. XXXX XXXX export showing repeated suspense/unapplied reversals and reapplications ( including XX/XX/XXXX sequencing ). XXXX. CFPB complaint narrative draft Product : Mortgage Issue : Trouble during payment process ( payment application / escrow / fees ) Company : XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) ; corporate owner Rithm Capital Corp. ( public company ) Narrative : I submit this complaint to document and request CFPB review of ( 1 ) ongoing mortgage servicing/payment application irregularities reflected in XXXX own XXXX history and ( XXXX ) an apparent attempt by XXXX outside XXXX to deter lawful petitioning activity and dispute submissions through the CFPB and XXXX channels. A. Underlying servicing dispute : repeated suspense/unapplied cycling and delayed application XXXX payment history reflects recurring sequences in which borrower funds are placed into Unapplied Payment, then reversed out of Unapplied Payment, and then applied as a full Regular Payment, sometimes while additional partial payments remain parked as unapplied. For example, on XX/XX/XXXX there is a positive Unapplied Payment entry, a negative Unapplied Payment reversal, and then a full Regular Payment applied for the same XX/XX/XXXX due date ( principal/interest/escrow allocated ), while a separate XX/XX/XXXX partial payment remains Unapplied Payment. This same unapplied reversal regular payment pattern appears across multiple months. These accounting mechanics materially matter because delinquency status, late fees, default staging, property-preservation/inspection triggers, and credit reporting snapshots can be driven by how and when funds are applied rather than whether funds were received. I request CFPB XXXX of whether XXXX handling of suspense/unapplied funds, application timing, and associated assessments/collection posture are accurate and compliant, and I request a written, account-level explanation of : ( XXXX ) why funds were held unapplied, ( XXXX ) the business rule that triggers the reversals, ( XXXX ) whether any delinquency/late fees/collections status was generated while funds were already received but held in suspense, and ( XXXX ) how escrow deficits and disbursements interacted with application decisions. B. Counsel letter attempting to chill complaints and dispute rights On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX outside counsel ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) sent me a letter asserting that I have filed more than XXXX complaints, characterizing my complaints as rambling and generally incoherent, asserting I am not operating in good faith, demanding that I cease submitting complaints regarding XXXX, XXXX, and executives, directing that all future correspondence be sent only to counsel, and threatening further action, including a lawsuit to stop the continued harassment. This letter is relevant to CFPB supervision because it appears intended to deter the submission of consumer complaints and servicing dispute communications. I am exercising a lawful right to petition the government and to submit complaints to a federal agency. The XXXX Supreme Court has recognized the right to petition agencies as part of XXXX XXXX petitioning activity. California XXXX XXXX. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). Although the letter frames my complaints as harassment, it does not address the substance of the payment history anomalies described above, nor does it provide an account-level reconciliation that resolves the recurring suspense/unapplied cycling shown in XXXX own records. I request CFPB review of whether XXXX counsel communications, in context, function as an intimidation mechanism to suppress regulatory complaint activity instead of correcting or transparently explaining servicing practices. XXXX Governance and internal controls tie to XXXX XXXX leadership oversight XXXX is owned by XXXX XXXX. XXXX public governance materials identify XXXX XXXX as XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. When a regulated financial services enterprise responds to repeated consumer servicing disputes primarily with stop complaining or we may sue you, the compliance question becomes whether leadership and the board maintain adequate information-and-reporting systems and good-faith oversight over mission-critical consumer servicing, dispute handling, and compliance functions. Delaware fiduciary oversight doctrine recognizes liability exposure when there is an utter failure to implement or monitor a reasonable reporting system, or when known compliance risks are consciously disregarded. In re XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. Ch. XXXX ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX ). Delaware courts have emphasized mission-critical compliance oversight where core business risks demand board-level reporting and response. XXXX v. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX ). The XXXX XXXX XXXX further illustrates that failure to ensure board-level reporting on mission-critical safety and compliance risks can state an oversight claim. In re The XXXX Co. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX No. XXXX ( XXXX. Ch. XX/XX/XXXX ). I am not asking CFPB to adjudicate Delaware fiduciary law. I cite these authorities to show why it is unreasonable for a regulated servicer enterprise to treat repeated consumer dispute submissions as mere harassment while the underlying payment application mechanics remain unresolved, and why strong internal controls and compliance governance are expected at the corporate-owner level for a mortgage servicing platform. XXXX Requested relief XXXX. Require Shellpoint to provide a complete account-level reconciliation explaining each XXXX XXXX hold, each reversal, and each subsequent Regular Payment application for the disputed period, and whether any delinquency/late fees/collections/inspection triggers or credit reporting were generated while funds were in suspense. XXXX. Require XXXX to identify the specific business rules/policies for suspense handling, reversal batching, and escrow-shortage treatment, and produce a written explanation that a borrower can audit. XXXX. Require XXXX to confirm in writing that it will not threaten litigation or otherwise attempt to deter lawful CFPB complaint submissions, and that it will address specific asserted servicing errors in good faith rather than characterizin y as harassment. XXXX. XXXX this complaint for supervisory review if CFPB deems appropriate due to the apparent pattern of suspense-cycling and counsels attempt to chill complaint activity. XXXX. Refer Outside Counsel for disciplinary action XXXX XXXX petitioning to agencies : California XXXX XXXX. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). XXXX XXXX identification : XXXX investor governance renberg ). XXXX oversight : In re XXXX XXXX XXXX. Derivative Litig., XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. Ch. XXXX ). XXXX XXXX XXXX standard : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX ). Mission-critical oversight : XXXX v. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX ). XXXX oversight pleading : In re The XXXX Co. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX No. XXXX ( XXXX. Ch. XX/XX/XXXX ).

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation