Public professional profile
Rob Shell / Robert Hillman Shell
- Role
- Mortgage Loan Originator
- Organization
- Mutual of Omaha Mortgage
- NMLS ID
- NMLS ID #2226086
Dossier summary
Complaint Overview
Summary of the filing position, legal framework, and disputed issues.
Professional record context
People named in the record
Public professional identifiers are provided for source review. Personal contact details are intentionally omitted.
Public professional profile
Vicki Smith
- Role
- New Home Sales Consultant
- Organization
- PulteGroup
- License number:
- Not established by current cited sources.
Pulte Homes Tennessee is listed in a separate public listing record as professional context only.
Vicki Smith's LinkedIn profile (opens in a new tab)Public professional profile
Mackenzie Curtis
- Role
- Divisional Builder Manager
- Organization
- Acrisure Mortgage
- NMLS ID
- NMLS ID #471956
The submitted complaint identifies Mackenzie Curtis as a Mutual of Omaha Mortgage Regional Vice President, Builder Division, in August 2025. Her current official profile lists Acrisure Mortgage, so this site does not imply an ongoing Mutual affiliation.
Mackenzie Curtis's current official profile (opens in a new tab)Filing position and core allegations
The complaint was filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and cites Dodd-Frank UDAAP authority, TILA, RESPA, and Regulation Z.
It alleges steering into a higher-cost DSCR/non-QM interest-only product, incomplete product-option presentation, and disclosure timing problems in the lead-up to closing.
Mutual of Omaha Mortgage response position
Mutual states the borrower sought financing for two investment properties and did not meet personal-income qualification for traditional conventional underwriting at the time of application.
Mutual states the DSCR program through NewFi Lending was explained, accepted by the borrower, and properly disclosed in business-purpose transactions that the company considers exempt under 12 CFR 1026.3(a).
Complainant rebuttal position
The rebuttal states the DSCR path was presented as the only practical option and that requested side-by-side alternatives and conventional pricing analysis were not provided during the decision window.
The rebuttal further states that timing pressure tied to earnest money reduced meaningful product choice and that later rate and product information supports additional regulatory review.
Current dispute status
The two sides disagree on suitability, option availability, disclosure sufficiency, and the legal effect of business-purpose classification.
The complainant requests additional regulator review and production of lock-date pricing records, internal eligibility analysis, disclosure logs, and compensation documentation.