Two servicers, one massive unexplained figure, and a stack of unanswered letters
A Texas borrower is suing two mortgage servicers over what he says is a $2.6 million accounting entry on his mortgage that nobody can explain.
Douglas Haynes filed a pro se federal lawsuit on October 2, 2026, in the Western District of Texas against Servbank, LLC and Nationstar Mortgage LLC. His claim: both companies failed to properly service his mortgage account and ignored his written demands for answers, in violation of federal servicing rules.
The whole case turns on one number. According to the suit, a figure of $2,606,506.60 appeared in connection with the servicing, administration, or accounting of the borrower's mortgage. Haynes alleges he has no idea how it got there. He says he lacks access to the records needed to determine how the defendants "derived, received, transferred, booked, credited, debited, or otherwise accounted for" the amount.
He is not saying his entire mortgage balance is wrong. The filing states he "does not claim that the entire amount of his mortgage balance constitutes damages merely because he disputes that balance." What he alleges is narrower - the $2,606,506.60 figure is a specific disputed servicing and accounting matter that needs to be investigated, explained, documented, and corrected if it turns out to be wrong.
What Haynes wants now is a paper trail. The suit asks the defendants to identify the date the amount was created, the transaction behind it, which entity paid or received it, the originating account, the destination account, the accounting code used, and whether the figure represents actual funds, a payoff figure, a servicing-transfer balance, or something else entirely. That is a long list. And according to the filing, none of it has been answered.
There is a state-court fight running alongside all of this. A Justice of the Peace in Bell County, Texas, ruled against Haynes on September 11, 2026, in an eviction proceeding - Cause No. 11CV2601572. Haynes filed a Notice of Appeal on September 28, 2026. He includes that proceeding as factual background in the federal case, but he is clear about what he is not asking for. He does not want the federal court to reverse the state judgment. He does not want it vacated. He is not asking the federal court to act as an appeals court over the eviction at all.
What he does want is for his federal claims to stand on their own.
The suit brings four counts. The first alleges the servicers violated RESPA, the federal law that governs how mortgage servicers must handle borrower inquiries and account disputes. According to the filing, the servicers failed to properly respond to Haynes' written inquiries, failed to investigate alleged errors, failed to make corrections, and failed to provide required explanations about disputed account information.
The second count targets Regulation X, the federal rule that spells out how servicers must handle written notices of error. Haynes alleges he submitted a formal Notice of Error identifying specific servicing mistakes and sent it to the servicers' designated addresses by certified mail. The response, according to the filing: nothing. No acknowledgment. No investigation. No correction. No written explanation.
The third count is about the handoff. The filing alleges that Haynes' mortgage was transferred between Nationstar and Servbank during relevant periods, and that the transfer came with discrepancies in account balances, payment histories, transaction records, and other servicing information. The servicing-transfer records, Haynes alleges, do not adequately explain the disputed $2,606,506.60 entry.
The fourth count alleges the servicers' conduct caused financial injury on its own - separate from whatever the state eviction court decided. The alleged injuries include improper account charges, inaccurate balances, improperly allocated payments, costs incurred responding to servicing errors, and other monetary losses.
Haynes seeks actual damages, additional statutory damages if he can show a pattern of noncompliance, attorney's fees and costs, and a court declaration establishing the parties' rights under federal servicing law.
For servicing shops, the case is a practical reminder: a borrower who loses an eviction in state court does not lose the right to demand answers about how the loan was serviced, and RESPA's error-resolution clock does not stop ticking because a parallel proceeding went the other way.
The allegations in this lawsuit have not been proven, and no court has made any findings on the merits.
