RESPA violations, missing 1098s, and a broken forbearance deal also alleged
A Texas couple claims JPMorgan Chase and Hometrust Mortgage hid the true lender's identity at closing, raising uncomfortable questions about correspondent lending transparency.
The lawsuit, filed January 26, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, paints a troubling picture of what can go wrong when loan origination disclosures and servicing practices fall short of regulatory expectations. The case remains in its early stages, with no determination on the merits.
At the heart of the dispute is a March 2022 home purchase in Houston. According to court filings, the loan had already been underwritten to Chase's specifications by February 28, 2022, and assigned a Chase Investor Loan Number, all before the borrowers ever sat down at the closing table on March 11. Yet the Closing Disclosure handed to Megan and Ryan Douat that day listed Hometrust Mortgage Company as the sole lender. Chase's name appeared nowhere on the federal settlement statements.
The disconnect did not stop there. While Hometrust held itself out as the lender on paper, the company allegedly instructed the hazard insurance agent to change the mortgagee clause to read JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. That behind-the-scenes maneuvering, the lawsuit argues, created a "clouded origination" that would haunt the borrowers for years.
Hometrust collected $2,263.75 in origination and processing fees for the transaction. The lawsuit characterizes those services as substantively dictated by Chase, not Hometrust, raising pointed questions about who was really steering the ship and whether borrowers deserved to know.
The servicing side of the story is equally concerning for industry professionals watching compliance trends. The lawsuit alleges Chase failed to respond to a Qualified Written Request within the timeframes required under RESPA, despite receiving it on July 24, 2025. Three separate written requests from the borrowers' counsel allegedly yielded only late and incomplete responses.
More striking, Chase allegedly never provided Form 1098 mortgage interest statements for 2022, 2023, or 2024, nor annual escrow analyses for those years. The lawsuit states Chase acknowledged the requests and said the loan was under review, but more than five months passed without the documents materializing.
The servicing allegations extend to payment handling. The lawsuit claims Chase diverted portions of monthly payments into suspense accounts, posted arbitrary amounts to principal and interest, and relied on incomplete records when borrowers raised concerns. A forbearance agreement authorizing $100.00 monthly payments for April through June 2025 was allegedly approved, then promptly ignored. Chase reportedly refused the reduced payments, treated the account as delinquent, and reported negative credit information.
When the borrowers began asking questions in May 2025, Chase allegedly filed a retroactive assignment of the Deed of Trust more than three years after origination, then cut off their online account access.
The borrowers are seeking statutory damages under RESPA, disgorgement of fees paid to Hometrust, and treble damages under Texas consumer protection law.
