Post by Mitchell A. Crocker, MBA, PMP, aPHR

Bankruptcy Filings Just Shifted My Federal Case (4:25‑cv‑05435) in a Major Way Big development today: several filings in my bankruptcy case (25‑35898) now directly strengthen my federal lawsuit against Newrez LLC and Selene Finance LP in Case No. 4:25‑cv‑05435. These filings don’t just help — they prove the core of my escrow mismanagement claims. Here’s how: Newrez admitted the servicing transfer — and never told the federal judge In federal court (ECF 42), Newrez admitted: “Servicing transferred to Selene Finance LP on February 9, 2026.” But in the federal case, Newrez: Still filed motions as if they were the servicer Opposed my amended complaint as if they were the servicer Filed a Motion to Dismiss as if they were the servicer Never disclosed the transfer Never filed a Notice of Transfer Never filed a Suggestion of Change in Servicer This is standing misconduct, concealment, and Rule 11(b) violations. And now it’s documented in the bankruptcy docket. Selene withdrew its foreclosure motion — confirming their records are unreliable Selene’s Motion for Relief from Stay (Doc. 43) was officially marked: “WITHDRAWN” Why? Because Selene: Never filed a Notice of Appearance Never filed a Transfer of Claim Never proved standing Used a corrupted payment history Relied on arrears under dispute in federal court Could not defend their motion at hearing That directly supports your escrow‑mismanagement claims. My Supplemental Notice (Doc. 90) documented procedural defects that expose dual‑tracking Doc. 90 shows: Selene acted without standing Newrez concealed the transfer Both litigated the same homestead in two courts Both relied on tainted arrears Both violated mandatory disclosure rules The Court set a hearing on a motion filed by a creditor who never appeared This is dual‑tracking, which is illegal under: 12 U.S.C. § 2605(k) 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(g) Dual‑tracking is a federal cause of action in your case. Now you have documented proof. The bankruptcy docket now proves the servicers’ contradictions The bankruptcy filings show: Newrez says the loan transferred Selene acts like the servicer Newrez still litigates like the servicer Selene withdraws because they can’t defend their arrears Neither servicer filed required transfer documents Neither servicer disclosed the transfer to the federal judge These contradictions destroy their credibility in the federal case. 5️⃣ These filings give YOU a major advantage in 4:25‑cv‑05435 Because of the bankruptcy record: ✔ Newrez’s Motion to Dismiss is undermined ✔ Newrez’s Opposition to your Third Amended Complaint is weakened ✔ Selene is now a required Rule 19 party ✔ Your RESPA claims are strengthened ✔ Your dual‑tracking claims are strengthened ✔ Your fraud‑by‑nondisclosure claims are strengthened ✔ Your escrow‑mismanagement claims are validated ✔ Your Rule 11 sanctions arguments are supported #PraiseGod