A New Jersey homeowner has filed a lawsuit against Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, alleging years of unfair practices that violated federal and state laws, including RESPA. The homeowner claims the company delayed decisions, provided inconsistent information, and mishandled requests for mortgage assistance, leading to financial losses and jeopardizing her home and business.
This lawsuit highlights potential violations of consumer protection laws in mortgage servicing, which could lead to significant financial penalties and reputational damage for the company if the allegations are proven. It also underscores the importance of fair and transparent mortgage servicing practices for homeowners facing financial difficulties.
A New Jersey homeowner, Autumn M. Urling, has filed a lawsuit against Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, alleging a pattern of unfair mortgage servicing practices that violated federal and state laws. The complaint, lodged in the Superior Court of New Jersey, claims the company's actions, including repeated delays in decisions, inconsistent information, and mishandling of mortgage assistance requests, deprived her of a meaningful opportunity to avoid foreclosure.
Filed on July 8 and amended on July 16, the lawsuit asserts violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and its implementing Regulation X, as well as the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and state common law. Urling alleges that Shellpoint's conduct resulted in financial losses, including increased interest, servicing fees, and foreclosure-related expenses, and also disrupted her home-based business, causing lost income and reputational harm.
Specific allegations include receiving a reinstatement notice on June 30 for a payment due July 1, which Urling claims did not provide adequate time to secure funds. She also contends that Shellpoint failed to provide timely or adequate responses to loss-mitigation applications and notices of error, while simultaneously pursuing foreclosure. The complaint further states the company failed to provide a written explanation for denying a change-of-circumstances request that included a proposed $50,000 contribution toward resolving the default.
Urling is seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, statutory and treble damages where applicable, attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive relief. Representatives from Newrez/Shellpoint did not immediately respond to requests for comment.