Filing challenges how a major servicer and bureaus coded a Chapter 13
A new federal case filed January 27, 2026, in Dallas is putting a spotlight on how mortgage servicers and credit bureaus report loans after a Chapter 13 bankruptcy – and what happens when that reporting goes wrong.
The case, brought by Mississippi resident Melisha Triplett in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, names Equifax Information Services LLC, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Trans Union LLC, and Nationstar Mortgage LLC, which does business as Mr. Cooper. Triplett alleges that the three national bureaus and Nationstar mishandled how her mortgage and auto loan were reported during and after her Chapter 13 bankruptcy in ways that violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Metro 2 guidelines.
According to the filing, Triplett took out a mortgage loan for her primary residence in or around May 2017. She later obtained a secured auto loan in or around December 2019. She filed for Chapter 13 protection on or around October 24, 2019. The case states that her mortgage was later sold to, transferred to, purchased by, or otherwise acquired by Nationstar and assigned a new loan number.
Throughout the Chapter 13 case, the filing claims, timely monthly payments were made on both the Nationstar mortgage and the auto loan under direct or indirect order from the bankruptcy. Triplett, the filing says, still lives in the home and continues to make timely mortgage payments. She was discharged from Chapter 13 on February 3, 2025, with her residential mortgage and the secured auto loan excepted from discharge.
The dispute centers on what showed up when Triplett pulled a tri‑merge credit report from Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union in May 2025. She alleges that Equifax and Trans Union reported her Nationstar mortgage with a zero balance, zero payment amount, a “derogatory” status, and creditor remarks referencing Chapter 13 bankruptcy, even though she contends the loan remained open and in repayment. The filing also claims that Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union reported the auto loan with an account status of “derogatory” and with Chapter 13‑related remarks after the discharge.
The case repeatedly cites Metro 2 reporting guidelines. According to the filing, those guidelines require furnishers and/or credit reporting agencies, when a borrower is in Chapter 13, to update the Consumer Information Indicator to “D” and to continue furnishing monthly payment history with a value of “D.” Once a consumer is discharged, the filing states that Metro 2 standards instruct furnishers and/or consumer reporting agencies to submit a CII code of “Q” and to remove any references to Chapter 13 bankruptcy and any suppression codes associated with bankruptcy reporting so that ongoing payments can be reported. The filing alleges that Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union have adopted Metro 2 as industry standards and that both furnishers and the bureaus are expected to follow them.
Triplett says she sent written disputes about the Nationstar mortgage and the auto loan to each bureau on or about July 11, 2025. The filing states that Equifax replied in October and November 2025, Experian responded in August 2025, and Trans Union also responded in August 2025. According to the case, Equifax ultimately corrected the auto loan reporting, marking it as transferred and closed and removing negative bankruptcy remarks and indicators, but continued to report the Nationstar mortgage with a zero balance and as transferred. The filing alleges that Experian and Trans Union did not make the substantive changes she requested on the auto loan and continued to report Chapter 13‑related remarks.
Nationstar, as the furnisher of the mortgage information, is alleged to have failed to conduct reasonable investigations after receiving notice of Triplett’s disputes from one or more of the bureaus, failed to fully and properly investigate the disputed mortgage account, and continued to report the Nationstar mortgage without properly reflecting that the debt was disputed.
Triplett is seeking actual, statutory, and punitive damages, along with court orders requiring the companies to reinvestigate and correct her consumer and credit reports, as well as costs and attorney’s fees. She has demanded a jury trial.
For mortgage professionals, the case serves as a reminder that post‑bankruptcy mortgage reporting – particularly around Chapter 13 treatment of ongoing home loans – can become a flashpoint when borrowers assert that Metro 2 and Fair Credit Reporting Act obligations were not followed.
The matter is at an early stage, and the court has not made any findings on the merits of Triplett’s allegations.
