The servicer allegedly admitted the error in writing — but kept foreclosing anyway
NewRez/Shellpoint allegedly erased a borrower's successor status during a servicing transfer — then foreclosed on the very default its own error created.
A lawsuit filed February 23, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida lays out a sequence of events that mortgage servicers would do well to study closely. The case, Murray v. NewRez LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing (Case No. 5:26-cv-00142), centers on what happens when critical borrower information falls through the cracks during a loan handoff.
Denise Murray was confirmed as a successor in interest by Wells Fargo in February 2022, after her mother, Ann Murray, passed away. Wells Fargo updated the account, and Murray began receiving billing statements, escrow notices, and other loan communications. The system worked as it should — until it didn't.
When servicing transferred to Specialized Loan Servicing, now known as NewRez/Shellpoint, in March 2022, Murray's successor status was allegedly not carried over. The loan was boarded without her information, and she was effectively locked out of the account — unable to access loan details, discuss the account, or make payments.
The result, the lawsuit alleges, was an artificial default — one driven not by any failure on Murray's part, but by the servicer's own boarding error.
From there, things allegedly got worse. Late fees, corporate advances, escrow advances, and other costs were assessed against the account. The loan was referred to foreclosure, and a foreclosure action was filed in Lake County, Florida, in March 2025. A lis pendens was recorded against the property.
Perhaps the most striking allegation is that the servicer acknowledged the mistake. According to the lawsuit, Shellpoint admitted in writing that Murray "was removed in error" and that the loan "was improperly boarded without the successor in interest information." Yet even after that admission, the servicer allegedly refused to reverse the fees and charges that had piled up.
The lawsuit also alleges dual tracking — claiming that Shellpoint approved a loan modification in November 2024 while simultaneously pushing forward with foreclosure, a practice prohibited under federal servicing rules.
Murray ultimately paid $43,546.14 under protest to halt the foreclosure. After reinstatement, Shellpoint allegedly issued a surplus check for $4,694 with no clear explanation, raising further questions about what had been charged and why.
The case brings five counts under RESPA, including claims related to servicing transfer failures, improper error handling, successor-in-interest violations, and dual tracking. Murray is seeking actual and statutory damages, attorney's fees, and a court declaration that the assessed charges were improper.
What elevates this case beyond a single borrower dispute is the allegation that this was not an isolated incident — but part of a broader pattern of failing to properly transfer successor status during servicing handoffs. If that claim gains traction, it could carry significant implications for how servicers manage loan transfers industry-wide.
No final determination has been made in the case.
