Canonical complaint record
The complete substantive complaint text appears with only protected identity and contact fields withheld, followed by the complainant's supplemental rebuttal.
Professional record context
Public professional identifiers are provided for source review. Personal contact details are intentionally omitted.
Public professional profile
Complaint context: The complaint identifies Robert Hillman Shell as the Mutual of Omaha Mortgage professional involved in the disputed Dupont loan transactions.
Rob Shell's LinkedIn profile (opens in a new tab)Public professional profile
Pulte Homes Tennessee is listed in a separate public listing record as professional context only.
Complaint context: The complaint identifies Vicki Smith in the Legacy South sales context and alleges closing pressure tied to earnest-money risk.
Vicki Smith's LinkedIn profile (opens in a new tab)Public professional profile
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.
Complaint context: The complaint identifies Mackenzie Curtis as the Mutual of Omaha Mortgage representative who provided rate options and loan structures in August 2025.
Mackenzie Curtis's current official profile (opens in a new tab)Submitted complaint
The complete substantive text below runs from the filing caption through Appendix A. Each statement remains attributed to the complaint unless a source independently states otherwise.
Submitted to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) under the Dodd-Frank Act, TILA, RESPA, and Regulation Z.
Complainant: [WITHHELD - complainant and associated entity names]
Respondents: Robert Hillman Shell (NMLS ID #2226086), identified in the complaint as a licensed mortgage broker; Mutual of Omaha Mortgage; and NewFi Lending, identified in the complaint as the underwriting and funding partner.
This complaint is filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5531 et seq.), the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), and Regulation Z (12 C.F.R. 1026), alleging predatory lending, unlawful loan steering, and fraudulent misrepresentation during the origination and closing of two investment property loans.
The CFPB has federal jurisdiction over mortgage origination practices involving violations of Regulation Z, TILA, and RESPA, including unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (UDAAP), even where the properties are classified as investment-purpose loans originated through residential mortgage channels.
The Respondents, Mutual of Omaha Mortgage and NewFi Lending, acted jointly in the origination and funding of two loans for 700 N Dupont Ave, Units 512 and 514, Madison, Tennessee. [WITHHELD - complainant-associated entity names.] Their broker and agent, Mr. Rob Shell, misrepresented loan availability, failed to provide federally required disclosures in the proper sequence and timeframe, and steered the borrower into an unnecessarily high-cost product for financial gain.
1.Initial Application (October 18, 2023): On October 18, 2023, the Complainant submitted an initial mortgage application to Mutual of Omaha Mortgage through Mr. Rob Shell. The application concerned financing for 700 N Dupont Ave, Units 512 and 514, Madison, Tennessee. [WITHHELD - complainant-associated entity names.]
2.Representation of Limited Loan Options: At the time of application, Mr. Shell represented that only one loan program was available - a non-qualified mortgage (non-QM), interest-only product with an approximate interest rate of 10 percent. The Complainant states that they were forced to purchase a rate buydown. When the Complainant requested alternative options or lower rates, Mr. Shell repeatedly stated, "this is the only option."
3.Failure to Provide Comparable Loan Products or Rate Sheets: No rate sheets, loan comparisons, or alternative products were provided as required under federal lending law. This omission prevented the borrower from evaluating reasonable alternatives or obtaining a fair loan structure.
4.Regulation Z Violations (Steering and Compensation Bias): Under the CFPB's Regulation Z (12 C.F.R. 1026.36(e)), mortgage brokers are prohibited from steering a consumer to a transaction based on higher compensation to the originator. Brokers must provide loan options including: (i) the lowest interest rate for which the borrower qualifies; (ii) the lowest total origination points or fees; and (iii) the lowest rate available. Mr. Shell's actions failed to meet these requirements and directly violated federal anti-steering rules.
5.Disclosure Timing and TRID Noncompliance: Although the required Loan Estimate and Closing Disclosure were eventually provided, they were delivered outside of the mandated sequence and timeframes required under TILA, RESPA, and the TRID Rule (12 C.F.R. 1026.19(e)). This delay deprived the Complainant of sufficient time to review loan terms before closing, constituting a procedural violation of federal disclosure standards.
6.Processing and Undisclosed Loan Assignment: The loans were underwritten and funded through NewFi Lending and later sold to Planet Home Lending. This transfer of servicing and funding was never disclosed before closing, violating TILA's transparency requirements.
7.Predatory Loan Structure and Impact: The non-QM loan terms, if held to maturity, would yield an effective total interest burden approaching 200% of the principal balance, resembling hard-money lending standards. This structure represents a pattern of predatory lending inconsistent with conventional underwriting norms.
8.Evidence of Misrepresentation - Subsequent Transactions: Following these transactions, the Complainant successfully obtained two conventional 30-year fixed-rate loans on comparable properties at 7.125% interest through Capital Fund One (Brentwood, TN). This demonstrates that the borrower did, in fact, qualify for standard financing options - directly contradicting Mr. Shell's earlier assertions that only non-QM products were available.
Over the past year and a half, Complainant has worked with counsel and consulted additional resources, including auditors and compliance professionals, regarding these matters. Given the complexity of the case and the multiple parties involved, the Respondent has not processed a filing for a hearing at this time. Filing is to be determined, and additional action will be considered based on the outcome of these complaints.
A. Violations of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.): Failure to provide the Loan Estimate and Closing Disclosure in the proper sequence and within the required statutory periods as mandated under Regulation Z 1026.19(e)(1)(i), thereby violating federal timing and consumer-disclosure obligations; misrepresentation of APR and total cost of credit; and failure to disclose material terms prior to consummation.
B. Violations of the CFPB Anti-Steering Rule (Regulation Z 1026.36(e)): Steering the borrower toward a high-cost, non-qualified product for broker and lender compensation; failing to present three qualifying loan options as required by federal law; and engaging in conduct that the complaint characterizes as fraud, misrepresentation, and predatory lending.
C. Violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (12 U.S.C. 2607(b)): Participation in or facilitation of unearned fees, kickbacks, or other referral-based compensation prohibited by RESPA Section 8.
As a direct and proximate result of the Respondents' conduct, Complainant and [WITHHELD - additional private identity] have sustained substantial financial harm, including but not limited to inflated origination and closing costs; improper absorption of builder credits; excessive interest charges and loss of equity; and diminished investment profitability due to deceptive lending practices.
Complainant respectfully requests that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau:
1.Conduct a federal investigation into the lending practices of Robert Hillman Shell (NMLS ID #2226086), Mutual of Omaha Mortgage, and NewFi Lending.
2.Determine whether the Respondents violated federal lending laws, including TILA, RESPA, Regulation Z, and UDAAP provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act.
3.Enforce administrative penalties, restitution, and corrective measures as appropriate.
4.Refer findings to the Tennessee Attorney General and HUD's RESPA Enforcement Office for parallel action where warranted.
I certify that the statements contained in this complaint are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and that all attached documents are true and correct copies of original records.
Respectfully submitted, [WITHHELD - signature, complainant name, private home address, and direct contact fields].
Date: November 8, 2025.
This appendix identifies additional individuals and entities involved in the transactions, communications, and loan origination process related to 700 N Dupont Ave, Units 512 and 514, Madison, Tennessee. [WITHHELD - complainant-associated entity names.]
1.Callahan Neuroth - Mortgage Loan Originator Assistant, NMLS ID 2471027, affiliated with Mutual of Omaha Mortgage. Role stated in the complaint: assisted Mr. Rob Shell during loan processing and correspondence related to the loan structure.
2.Vicki Smith - Legacy South (Builder Representative), identified in the complaint as an affiliate broker and new home sales counselor. [WITHHELD - direct phone and email fields.] Role stated in the complaint: facilitated contract documentation and closing coordination; required $10,000 earnest deposits per property and warned that withdrawing from the loan would result in forfeiture; ceased all communication after discussions regarding potential filings against Mr. Shell.
3.Mackenzie Curtis - Regional Vice President, Builder Division, affiliated with Mutual of Omaha Mortgage, NMLS ID 471956. [WITHHELD - direct phone and email fields.] Role stated in the complaint: contacted on August 24, 2025 and provided rate options and loan structures that the complaint characterizes as confirming that conventional products were available, contradicting Mr. Shell's prior statements.
4.Andrew DeGood - Inglet Blair (Audit Division), identified in the complaint as an auditor and risk management liaison. Role stated in the complaint: established a contract for compliance audit and due diligence review; initial contact occurred on November 18, 2024; served as liaison for audit communications between Inglet Blair and the Complainant.
5.Michael Jackson - NewFi Lending, identified in the complaint as Vice President and Regional Sales Manager for NewFi Wholesale. [WITHHELD - direct phone, email, and non-central private address fields.] Role stated in the complaint: oversaw compliance communications for NewFi Lending. [PRIVATE CORRESPONDENCE SUMMARIZED: NewFi declined disclosure and document requests on confidentiality, proprietary-information, and third-party-report grounds.] The complaint characterizes that refusal as further support for allegations of nondisclosure and concealment.
Complainant's stated position
The material below disputes Mutual of Omaha Mortgage's characterization of the transactions. The company response remains available in the attributed response-and-rebuttal comparison.
I respectfully dispute Mutual of Omaha Mortgage, Inc.'s findings and characterization of the events surrounding the financing of 700 N Dupont Ave, Unit 514 and Unit 512 in Madison, Tennessee. Mutual's response omits critical facts, misstates the sequence of events, and fails to address material compliance concerns raised in my complaint.
Mutual asserts that the loan officer analyzed the borrower's situation and determined that a DSCR interest-only product was the most suitable option and that the borrower agreed to proceed after reviewing options. This rebuttal disputes that characterization.
The rebuttal states that no comparative loan options were provided at the time of application. It states that no side-by-side pricing, rate comparisons, or product alternatives were presented before the borrower was locked into the DSCR product, and that the claim that the DSCR loan was the best-suited product is unsupported because no conventional alternatives were meaningfully offered for evaluation.
The rebuttal further states that approximately one year later, Mutual provided a rate sheet reflecting materially better pricing and product availability for the same development. It presents that later rate sheet as contradicting Mutual's position that the DSCR product was the only viable or suitable product at the time, and as evidence that additional loan products were available through Mutual's channels.
The rebuttal also states that the claim that the DSCR product was selected solely because the borrower lacked personal income for conventional financing is incomplete and misleading because no written denial of conventional eligibility was provided and no documented comparison was produced showing why alternative programs were unavailable.
Mutual cites email correspondence in which the borrower stated a readiness to proceed as soon as possible with the interest-only loan offering. The rebuttal argues that this statement is being taken out of context.
According to the rebuttal, the borrower was under pressure to close and was informed that failure to close could result in forfeiture of earnest money deposits. It specifically states that Vicki Smith warned the earnest funds were at risk if the borrower did not proceed.
The rebuttal argues that agreement to move forward under those circumstances cannot reasonably be characterized as voluntary preference or informed product selection, but rather as a decision made under significant financial pressure. It characterizes that pressure as constructive coercion, especially where no alternatives were properly presented.
Mutual relies heavily on the business-purpose exemption under Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. 1026.3(a). The rebuttal argues that the existence of a business-purpose affidavit does not eliminate obligations under anti-steering provisions and does not cure failures in disclosure timing or product presentation.
The rebuttal specifically cites 12 C.F.R. 1026.36(e) and argues that steering concerns remain where a borrower is directed into a higher-cost loan without documented benefit or a meaningful presentation of lower-cost alternatives.
The rebuttal also states that disclosures must be meaningful and timely, not delivered at or immediately before closing when the borrower has no realistic ability to reconsider. It alleges that Mr. Shell did not provide adequate or timely disclosures in advance of closing and that documents were delivered too close to closing deadlines to permit proper review, comparison, or consultation.
Mutual states that the loan officer received less compensation on the brokered DSCR loan than on in-house conventional products and uses that point to suggest there was no financial motive to steer. The rebuttal argues that this is incomplete.
According to the rebuttal, steering does not require proof that the originator selected the highest-paying option. It can also arise through misrepresentation of product availability, failure to present lower-cost options, or placement into a higher-cost product without documented analysis of alternatives.
The rebuttal points to better products later offered for the same development as directly contradicting Mutual's assertion that no better options were available.
Misrepresentation of product availability.
Failure to present lower-cost options.
Placement into a higher-cost product without documented analysis of alternatives.
Mutual states that it did not have knowledge of the transfer because it acted only as broker. The rebuttal disputes that position and argues that, as the originating broker, Mutual still had responsibility to ensure compliance in the transfer process.
The rebuttal states that the absence of timely and transparent notice remains unresolved and that redirecting the borrower to NewFi Lending after the fact does not absolve Mutual of its role in origination.
Mutual states that it takes compliance seriously. The rebuttal argues that the borrower's experience reflects the opposite and describes a broader pattern inconsistent with transparent, consumer-focused lending.
Closings conducted outside originally agreed timelines.
Refusal to close in trust as requested.
Significantly elevated interest rates compared with later offerings.
Buydown structures that did not meaningfully reduce long-term cost.
The rebuttal states that Rob Shell's conduct warrants further regulatory review and argues that Mutual's response relies heavily on contractual language and affidavits while avoiding substantive explanation of why alternative loan products were not properly presented at the time of application.
Potential violation of anti-steering provisions under TILA.
Failure to provide meaningful comparative disclosures.
Misrepresentation of product availability.
Constructive coercion at closing due to earnest money pressure.
Inflated borrowing costs relative to later-disclosed pricing.
The rebuttal rejects Mutual of Omaha Mortgage, Inc.'s conclusion that no violations occurred and states that the record reflects material inconsistencies, omissions, and mischaracterizations in Mutual's summary. It argues that the DSCR loan was not presented as one of several informed choices, but as the only path forward under time pressure.
The rebuttal states that these actions resulted in materially higher borrowing costs and long-term financial harm. It requests escalation for further regulatory review and production of the following records:
1.All internal underwriting notes regarding eligibility for conventional products at the time of application.
2.All rate sheets available on the dates of lock for both properties.
3.Compensation structure documentation for the loan officer on these transactions.
4.Full disclosure timing logs showing when documents were delivered and acknowledged.
The rebuttal states that the borrower reserves all rights and remedies available under state and federal law.