Newrez servicing arm sued in New Jersey over alleged RESPA violations

A New Jersey homeowner has filed a lawsuit against Newrez LLC, dba Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, alleging the company engaged in years of unfair mortgage servicing practices that deprived her of a meaningful opportunity to avoid foreclosure.

The complaint, filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division in Essex County, was brought by homeowner Autumn M. Urling. She claims that Shellpoint repeatedly delayed decisions, provided inconsistent information and mishandled her requests for mortgage assistance, resulting in financial losses and jeopardizing both her home and home-based business.

Court records show Urling filed the original complaint on July 8 and submitted a first amended complaint on July 16, before Shellpoint had filed a responsive pleading.

Representatives from Newrez/Shellpoint did not return HousingWire‘s request for comment at the time of publication.

Urling alleges that the “repeated pattern of mortgage servicing misconduct” resulted in violations of the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and its implementing Regulation X, as well as the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and state common law.

Among the allegations, Urling claims Shellpoint issued a reinstatement noticed dated June 22, 2026, but she did not receive it until about June 30, leaving only one day before the July 1 payment deadline. She contends the timeline did not provide a reasonable opportunity to obtain and transmit the funds needed to reinstate the loan.

Urling claims to have submitted multiple loss-mitigation applications, notices of error and requests for reconsideration in an effort to reinstate or modify her mortgage. She also alleges that Shellpoint “repeatedly failed” to provide timely or adequate responses and continued foreclosure activity while these requests remained unresolved.

The complaint also alleges the company failed to provide a written explanation about the denial of a change-of-circumstances request, which included a proposed $50,000 contribution toward resolving the default.

Urling claims Shellpoint provided “conflicting, inconsistent, incomplete and changing communications” about her mortgage account, reinstatement figures and foreclosure alternatives, while simultaneously pursuing foreclosure proceedings. She also alleges the company’s actions caused increased interest, servicing fees, escrow advances, foreclosure-related expenses and other financial losses.

Among the claims, Urling said that the dispute disrupted a home-based business she has operated since 1998, resulting in lost income, business opportunities and reputational harm, as well as emotional distress.

The plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages where permitted by law, statutory and treble damages where applicable, attorneys’ fees and costs, injunctive relief and other remedies to be determined at trial.