PHH Mortgage Corporation v. Rodney Johnson Sr, S.D. Texas

The lack of transparency in certain court cases in the Southern District Federal Court, Houston Div’n has been ratcheted up in recent months.


MAR 23, 2021

Response deadline was today, Tues 23rd March by Johnson but there’s a motion for an extn of time submitted on March 22 which is percolating at time of checking (7.30 pm cst).

Of all the court case listings, the foreclosure complaints, bank and nonbank complaints do not detail the parties and the judges on these days – when referring to S.D. Texas federal court. It’s duly noted y’all are hiding public information again – willfully.

PHH Mortgage Corporation (4:20-cv-01968)

District Court, S.D. Texas

This should be styled PHH Mortgage Corporation v. Rodney Johnson Snr and the Judge should be named, aka Charles Eskridge.

MAR 20, 2021


The motion by Appellee Rodney Johnson Sr to dismiss the bankruptcy appeal by Appellant PHH Mortgage Corporation as moot is denied. Dkt 4.

Johnson first argues that the appeal seeks reversal of the order of the bankruptcy court that approved the sale of his home.

And so, he says, such posture is deemed moot by 11 USC 363(m). Id at 5–7. But an appellant may seek reversal of a sale order notwithstanding § 363(m) where, for instance, it challenges whether the purchase was made in good faith. For example, see In re BNP Petroleum Corp, 642 F Appx 429, 434 (5th Cir 2016), citing In re TMT Procurement Corp, 396 F3d 632, 638 (5th Cir 2005).

PHH raises such challenge here. See Dkt 6 at 13, citing ROA 1087–88.

Mootness does not apply.

Johnson also argues that PHH failed to challenge on appeal the denial by the bankruptcy court of its motion to amend its proof of claim.

He also argues in the alternative that PHH is precluded from raising this issue by the order of the bankruptcy court that confirmed the second bankruptcy plan. See Dkt 4 at 7–8.

This is meritless.

The record clearly shows that the bankruptcy judge denied the motion to amend the proof of claim because he thought amendment improper—not because PHH was precluded from seeking amendment. See ROA 1062–63.

Johnson fails to explain or cite authority why a prior order precludes PHH from challenging a later, independent one. And PHH plainly asserts this issue on appeal. See Dkt 5 at 3–4; Dkt 6 at 14–15.

The motion to dismiss by Appellee Rodney Johnson Sr is DENIED. Dkt 4.

Johnson is reminded that he must file his response brief within thirty days of entry of this order, being March 24, 2021. Dkt 8.


Signed on February 23, 2021, at Houston, Texas.




Hon. Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge

Demona Freeman v. PHH Mortgage et al

Complaint: Ocwen has and continues to conceal the source, nature, and extent of the mishandling of the Loan while making material misrepresentations to Freeman.

U.S. Bank National Association v. Lamell, S.D. Texas – Magistrate Bryan Gives Judge Miller a Brief Headache on Acceleration

Magistrate Judge Bryan RECOMMENDS the Motion be DENIED with respect to PHH’s and USBNA’s request for declaratory judgment that the pre-2019 notices of acceleration were abandoned. District Judge Gray Miller defers ruling on that element in his Order Affirming Bryan’s M&R.

Finally, 33 AG’s Act on this Disgraceful Ocwen/PHH Class Action Settlement Agreement in Florida. Notable Exception – Indicted AG Paxton of Texas.

A coalition of 33 state attorneys general filed a motion against PHH Mortgage and its predecessor Ocwen Loan Servicing for allegedly charging unlawful servicing fees to nearly 1 million borrowers.

PHH Mortgage Corporation v. Rodney Johnson Sr, S.D. Texas
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Laws In Texas is a blog about the Financial Crisis and how the banks and government are colluding against the citizens and homeowners of the State of Texas and relying on a system of #FakeDocs and post-crisis legal precedents, specially created by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to foreclose on homeowners around this great State. We are not lawyers. We do not offer legal advice. We are citizens of the State of Texas who have spent a decade in the court system in Texas and have been party to during this period to the good, the bad and the very ugly.

Donate to LawsInTexas. Make a Difference.

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

We keep your data private and share your data only with third parties that make this service possible. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

© 2020-21 LawInTexas com is an online trading name which is wholly owned by Blogger Inc., a nonprofit 501(c)(3) registered in Delaware. | All Rights Reserved.

To Top