A vendor secured and winterized the property while it was still furnished and occupied
A Florida borrower has sued Rocket Mortgage and its property-preservation vendor, alleging they entered and secured her furnished, occupied home after a disputed vacancy determination - and then classified the property as vacant a second time even after the vendor acknowledged it was occupied.
The suit, filed September 9, 2026, in the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida, names Rocket Mortgage, LLC and Cyprexx Services, LLC as defendants. The homeowner, who is representing herself, obtained an FHA-insured 30-year fixed-rate mortgage through Rocket in 2022 for a property in Winter Haven, Polk County.
The filing traces the dispute to late 2025, when the borrower says she lost access to her online servicing account after changing phone numbers. Rocket’s multifactor-authentication system kept routing verification codes to the old number, the suit alleges, preventing her from logging in or making payments through the normal platform. She says she raised the problem repeatedly. Rocket’s servicing department acknowledged the issue and said it had been forwarded for review, but the lockout continued for months, according to the filing.
During that same period, the homeowner alleges she received conflicting information about who actually serviced her loan. On or about March 2, 2026, a Rocket-related communication directed her to Nationstar Mortgage LLC, doing business as Mr. Cooper, the suit says. Other loan documents and later Rocket correspondence continued to identify Rocket as the servicer. A May 2026 occupancy-inspection report also listed Mr. Cooper in the client-loan information associated with her loan number.
An escrow dispute compounded the confusion. Rocket’s August 9, 2025 Annual Escrow Account Disclosure Statement showed no shortage and a monthly payment of $1,414.94, the filing states. Approximately four months later, a December 10, 2025 analysis assessed a shortage of $4,375.82 and raised the monthly payment to $1,819.02. The borrower says the December statement listed an October 2025 estimated beginning escrow balance of $6,031.54 but an actual beginning balance of only $1,494.16 - a gap of approximately $4,537.38 that Rocket’s explanation of higher taxes and insurance did not adequately address, according to the suit.
Despite the account-access problems, the homeowner alleges she continued trying to pay. She says she mailed approximately $3,500 toward the mortgage in March 2026 and submitted an additional $1,400 with written correspondence dated May 10, 2026. On June 3, 2026, Rocket acknowledged receiving the $1,400 payment but said it would not accept it because the amount was insufficient to bring the account current, according to the filing. A later servicing response stated no payments had been received after February 20, 2026 - contradicting the June 3 acknowledgment, the suit alleges.
The trespass claim centers on what happened after a May 20, 2026 occupancy inspection classified the property as "Vacant." The stated grounds were flyers or newspapers on the porch, no window coverings, and large cobwebs over the entry door, the suit says. That same inspection report noted the property was secure, no locks needed changing, no doors or windows were broken or boarded, no debris removal was required, and lawn maintenance was not needed. The borrower alleges utilities remained active and she had been paying for lawn care.
She contends photographs from the inspection appear to show blinds or curtains despite the report’s finding of "no window coverings." She does not allege the report was intentionally falsified.
Following the vacancy classification, Cyprexx or persons in its preservation network entered the property on or about May 28, 2026, and performed work including lock-related and securing activity, interior entry, pressure testing, plumbing or winterization work, and cleaning, the filing states. Photographs taken during the preservation work depict a furnished interior with beds, couches, appliances, household items, and personal belongings, according to the suit.
The homeowner says she gave birth to twins shortly after midnight on May 29, 2026 - one day after the initial entry.
She promptly disputed the vacancy finding. On June 1, 2026, she prepared a detailed Notice of Error and Request for Information covering account access, payment receipt, escrow accounting, the occupancy classification, preservation activity, property access, and disputed charges, the suit says. USPS records reflect delivery on June 10, 2026. She separately filed a complaint through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Rocket’s CFPB response stated the company had conducted a reasonable investigation and determined no error occurred, according to the filing.
By June 8, 2026, Cyprexx acknowledged in a voicemail that the property was occupied, that all orders had been placed on hold, and that no services would be dispatched, the suit alleges. Yet on or about August 4, 2026, another inspection resulted in a second vacancy notice stating that preservation services - including securing, plumbing winterization, and lawn maintenance - could begin within three calendar days, the filing says.
Rocket’s August 18, 2026 mortgage statement listed property-related advances totaling $5,860.78, according to the suit. The breakdown included $210.00 for property inspections, $3,955.78 for maintenance, $75.00 for repairs, and $1,620.00 in legal fees. The statement’s loan-activity ledger showed six separate entries labeled "Maintenance" dated August 7, 2026 - three days after the second vacancy notice - in amounts of $554.52, $1,475.75, $1,200.00, $85.00, $297.71, and $192.80.
The borrower estimates approximately $15,000 in temporary lodging or hotel expenses, subject to proof. She also disputes preservation, inspection, and related charges on her mortgage account to the extent they resulted from the disputed servicing or preservation activity.
The suit raises four counts: two RESPA and Regulation X claims against Rocket Mortgage for its handling of the Notice of Error and the Request for Information; breach of mortgage contract against Rocket Mortgage; and trespass to real property against Cyprexx Services. The homeowner seeks actual and compensatory damages, temporary-housing expenses, correction or removal of disputed charges, statutory damages under RESPA if a pattern is established, costs, and attorney’s fees to the extent authorized by law.
All claims in the lawsuit are allegations, and no court has yet ruled on them.
