THE HOUSE WAS SOLD — BUT THE QUESTIONS DID NOT END

PUBLICATION STANDARD

This investigation distinguishes court findings from allegations, testimony from adjudicated facts, documentary evidence from interpretation, and unresolved questions from conclusions.

R13 Tribune is not reporting that any judge, trustee, lawyer, guardian, lender, servicer, purchaser, government employee, family member, or other person committed a crime or professional violation merely because questions are raised in this article.

Where R13 Tribune identifies matters for regulatory, law-enforcement, judicial, professional, or other independent review, those are requests for examination—not findings of wrongdoing.

Persons and institutions materially discussed in this investigation are being offered an opportunity to respond before final publication and related discussion on Law, Disorder, and Faith, Texas Size: You Be The Judge.

THE FORECLOSURE HAPPENED

When R13 Tribune previously examined the Dupree matter, the central question was whether the Hallum Drive property could be preserved long enough for unresolved legal and accounting issues to receive meaningful review.

That question has changed.

The foreclosure happened.

On October 6, 2026, the property at 12630 Hallum Drive in Dallas was sold at foreclosure. The recorded Foreclosure Sale Deed identifies Chuxiong Ding as the purchaser for $126,000.

The deed was executed October 13 and recorded October 15.

Ding subsequently filed a forcible-detainer action seeking possession of the property against Alfred William Dupree III and Myrtle Dupree.

The sale did not, however, make every underlying dispute disappear.

A federal lawsuit concerning the mortgage, lien, accounting, assignment history, constitutional home-equity issues and foreclosure authority had already been filed September 22 in the 162nd Judicial District Court of Dallas County.

That case was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on October 6 and is now pending as Alfred William Dupree III v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al., Civil Action No. 3:26-cv-03501-G-BN.

Alfred is now seeking permission to amend and supplement that action to add Ding as a defendant because Ding claims the title created by the foreclosure Alfred is challenging.

The proposed amended pleading does not declare that Ding acted unlawfully or that he cannot qualify as a bona-fide purchaser.

Instead, it seeks to determine what rights Ding acquired and whether the foreclosure deed may be affected if Alfred proves a legally sufficient defect in the foreclosure, enforcement authority, accounting, assignment record or other matters that remain properly before the court.

A notice of lis pendens concerning the federal real-property litigation was recorded October 23, 2026.

The litigation has therefore moved from an effort to prevent foreclosure to a post-foreclosure contest involving title, possession, accounting and the legal consequences of the sale.

$126,000 FOR PROPERTY VALUED BY DALLAS CAD AT $253,700

The foreclosure deed states a purchase price of $126,000.

Dallas Central Appraisal District records reviewed for the litigation list a 2026 certified market value of approximately $253,700.

That means the foreclosure price was roughly half of the tax-appraisal figure.

That comparison does not itself invalidate a foreclosure.

A county appraisal value is not necessarily the same thing as fair market value on the date of sale, and Texas law does not automatically invalidate a foreclosure simply because a property sold below an appraisal-district figure.

But the difference is substantial enough to become relevant if other foreclosure defects are ultimately proven.

The proposed federal pleading therefore treats valuation as one part of a larger inquiry rather than proof of wrongdoing.

A $40,000 LOAN BECAME A CLAIM EXCEEDING $232,000

The underlying Dupree transaction began in December 1999 as an approximately $40,000 Texas home-equity loan originated by Option One Mortgage Corporation.

In Alfred Dupree’s 2026 Chapter 13 bankruptcy, Claim No. 14 asserted approximately $232,916.40.

The claim included approximately:

$55,603.21 in principal

$70,486.11 in interest

$41,803.61 in prepetition fees and costs

$65,475.31 in escrow deficiency or funds advanced

less approximately $451.84 in funds on hand.

Those numbers do not establish that the debt was improperly calculated.

They do make one question unavoidable:

Can the entire loan history be reconstructed?

A meaningful accounting should be capable of showing how the original obligation developed into the amount claimed in 2026, including payments, interest, escrow advances, taxes, insurance, legal expenses, foreclosure expenses, modifications, credits, suspense accounts, bankruptcy payments and other charges.

Alfred’s proposed amended complaint therefore requests a complete life-of-loan accounting, including how the $126,000 foreclosure proceeds were applied and whether any surplus or deficiency remains.

A 1999 HOME-EQUITY QUESTION THAT HAS NEVER FULLY DISAPPEARED

The original loan was identified as a Texas Constitution Article XVI, Section 50(a)(6) home-equity loan.

Available Dallas CAD material for 1999 reflects an assessed market value of approximately $46,440.

Eighty percent of that amount is approximately $37,152.

The approximately $40,000 original loan therefore exceeded 80 percent of that particular appraisal-district figure.

But that does not establish that the loan violated the Texas Constitution.

The constitutional calculation turns on legally relevant fair-market-value evidence at the time of closing, and the lender may possess a contemporaneous appraisal and written owner/lender acknowledgment supporting a different value.

The investigative question is therefore not:

“Does the CAD number prove the loan was unconstitutional?”

It does not.

The question is:

Where is the original appraisal, fair-market-value acknowledgment and complete closing file that establishes compliance?

Alfred’s proposed amended federal complaint seeks those records.

THE 2016 NOTICE

Another unresolved part of the record dates to February 25, 2016.

Myrtle Dupree sent written notice to PennyMac and its counsel challenging aspects of the mortgage and expressly invoking Texas home-equity cure provisions and consumer-law issues.

PennyMac’s own federal removal papers from that period acknowledged receipt of the notice.

The same letter also described Myrtle as elderly, in failing health, living in long-term care and unable to type or write beyond signing her name, with Alfred assisting her in preparing the communication.

That letter did not constitute a judicial finding that Myrtle was legally incompetent.

It did, however, place information about her physical and functional condition into the mortgage-litigation record years before later competency questions became central to her bankruptcy and appellate proceedings.

R13 Tribune considers that distinction important.

A party does not necessarily know that someone is legally incompetent merely because it knows the person is elderly, ill or receiving assistance.

But when later litigation raises competency and Rule 17(c) concerns, the earlier record becomes relevant to the question of what was known, when it was known, and what protective procedures were considered.

THE LOST NOTE — AND THE LATER ORIGINAL NOTE

Earlier documents in the loan history include an Affidavit of Lost Note and related material describing the original note as lost or misplaced.

Later 2026 bankruptcy papers represented that the enforcing party was in possession of the original note.

Those statements are not necessarily irreconcilable.

A lost instrument can later be recovered.

The important question is documentary:

When and how was the original note recovered?

Alfred’s proposed amended complaint seeks the note-custody history, the identity of the custodian, chain-of-possession records and evidence authenticating the instrument now claimed to be the original.

THE 2024 “GAP ASSIGNMENT”

The recorded assignment chain also contains an unusual later development.

Records reviewed by R13 Tribune show assignments involving:

Option One/Sand Canyon;

JPMC Specialty Mortgage LLC, formerly WM Specialty;

PennyMac Holdings;

Citibank as trustee for CMLTI Asset Trust;

and ultimately U.S. Bank in an RMAC trustee capacity.

But in September 2024, more than two years after a 2022 federal default judgment concerning the mortgage, a new instrument was recorded.

It is expressly labeled a:

“GAP ASSIGNMENT.”

The instrument states that it was intended to be inserted before a June 2010 assignment.

Alfred’s federal pleading does not contend that the existence of a gap assignment automatically invalidates the mortgage.

Instead, it asks for the transaction documents, merger records, custodial schedules and title-curative materials explaining why a gap needed to be addressed in 2024 and what transfer the document was intended to memorialize or cure.

RMAC 2016-CTT OR RMAC 2016-HC-CTT?

The recorded September 2018 assignment reviewed by R13 Tribune identifies U.S. Bank as trustee for:

RMAC Trust, Series 2016-CTT.

Later bankruptcy, foreclosure and trustee-deed documents identify the asserted trustee as:

RMAC Trust, Series 2016-HC-CTT.

That difference may be nothing more than a naming variation or clerical correction.

It may also reflect additional trust documentation that has not yet been produced.

R13 Tribune is therefore asking U.S. Bank to explain whether these are:

the same trust;

different legal designations for the same trust;

a corrected name;

or separate entities connected through another transfer.

R13 Tribune has prepared a formal pre-publication request for comment asking U.S. Bank to explain that discrepancy and other documentary issues before this investigation is released.

Any substantive response may also be discussed on Law, Disorder, and Faith, Texas Size: You Be The Judge.

THE 2022 DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND MYRTLE’S CAPACITY

A federal default judgment entered March 7, 2022 determined that U.S. Bank was then entitled to enforce the note and deed of trust and authorized foreclosure in accordance with applicable law.

That judgment is significant.

R13 Tribune does not treat it as nonexistent simply because it was entered by default.

But later proceedings developed substantial questions concerning Myrtle Dupree’s cognitive capacity and her ability to protect her interests without appropriate assistance.

Alfred’s proposed amended pleading therefore does not simply ask another court to disregard the 2022 judgment.

It asks that the judgment be given the preclusive effect the law actually permits, while preserving any Rule 17(c) or Rule 60 issues for the court legally authorized to consider them.

The distinction matters.

The 2022 judgment may resolve some issues.

It could not have adjudicated events that had not yet occurred—including the 2024 gap assignment, the 2026 proof-of-claim accounting, the October 2026 foreclosure, Ding’s purchase or later possession proceedings.

MYRTLE’S FIFTH CIRCUIT APPEAL REMAINS PART OF THE STORY

Myrtle Dupree’s separate appeal remains pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The appeal concerns the handling and dismissal of her bankruptcy and related adversary proceeding and includes issues surrounding competency, Rule 17(c), representation after counsel withdrew, the characterization of dismissal as with prejudice and the district court’s handling of objections.

The October 6 sale changed the practical landscape.

Pre-sale injunctive relief can no longer stop a sale that has already occurred.

But the foreclosure does not necessarily answer every appellate question.

The continuing issue is which remedies, if any, remain legally available and whether later events should be judicially noticed without improperly expanding the appellate record.

ALFRED’S NEW FEDERAL FILING SEEKS TO ADD DING

The most immediate development is Alfred Dupree’s request to amend and supplement his federal lawsuit.

The proposed pleading would add Chuxiong Ding because Ding now claims title through the October 6 foreclosure and has sought possession through the justice court.

The proposed counts include:

Declaratory relief

Quiet title and removal of cloud

Set-aside, rescission or cancellation, if legally proven

Wrongful foreclosure or alternative damages

Equitable accounting

Texas home-equity compliance and cure

Note authentication and lost-note reconciliation

Assignment and present-enforcement issues

and preservation of Rule 17(c), Rule 60 and preclusion questions.

Importantly, the pleading does not allege as an established fact that Ding knew of defects in the foreclosure or lacks bona-fide-purchaser status.

It seeks discovery concerning Ding’s title search, bid and payment records, knowledge of the pending litigation, communications surrounding the foreclosure and any other evidence relevant to his legal status.

Because the federal action was removed on diversity jurisdiction, adding Ding could also raise a jurisdictional issue depending on Ding’s citizenship.

That question must be addressed by the federal court rather than assumed by either side.

DONALD SEILHEIMER: A DIFFERENT PROPERTY, MANY OF THE SAME QUESTIONS

The Dupree investigation has long intersected with another matter involving Donald Roy Seilheimer.

Donald’s mother died in 2014.

Her probate estate remained unfinished for years.

Although Donald was named executor, letters testamentary were not immediately issued.

One property, 2910 Perryton Drive, was foreclosed in February 2022.

The bankruptcy record later identified approximately $62,421.82 in excess proceeds arising from that foreclosure.

Donald filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy in April 2023.

The record that followed involved the excess proceeds, an elder-fraud referral, disputes concerning who controlled the money, an unfinished probate estate, a second property at 1509 Perryton, mortgage and foreclosure issues, and eventually guardianship proceedings.

The bankruptcy court entered adverse findings concerning Pastor Rufus Hampton’s involvement.

Hampton disputes substantial portions of those characterizations.

R13 Tribune does not erase the court’s findings merely because its reporter disputes them.

The findings are identified as findings.

Hampton’s position is identified as his position.

Independent documentary questions are examined separately.

That distinction is especially important because statements and conclusions developed in the Seilheimer matter did not remain confined to the Seilheimer case.

FROM BANKRUPTCY TO GUARDIANSHIP

The Seilheimer record raises a particularly important question about how information moves between legal systems.

Donald’s March 26, 2024 motion concerning his guardianship stated that the Dallas County Probate Court Investigation Department received a community referral from Chapter 13 Standing Trustee Thomas D. Powers.

The guardianship court had entered a temporary order in November 2023 finding substantial evidence that Donald may be incapacitated and probable cause concerning potential danger.

R13 Tribune does not characterize that temporary determination as a final permanent adjudication of incapacity.

Later materials reported that Dr. R. Scott Staton found Donald to have full capacity.

The probate court subsequently ordered another independent examination by Dr. Lisa Clayton.

R13 Tribune has continued to ask whether that examination occurred and, if so, what the result was.

Meanwhile, 1509 Perryton—the property Donald repeatedly identified as the home he wanted to keep—was ultimately placed into a guardianship sale process.

The investigative question is not whether guardianship courts may ever sell property.

They plainly can under appropriate circumstances.

The question is narrower:

Did the ultimate disposition of Donald’s property occur after the relevant capacity evidence, less-restrictive alternatives, probate status and mortgage defenses had been fully and accurately presented?

That remains a subject for independent review.

THE DUPREE–SEILHEIMER CROSSOVER

The crossover between the cases is documented.

Powers’ May 2023 Seilheimer filing discussed Hampton’s involvement in the separate Dupree matter and used that history as part of the basis for questioning advice Donald may have been receiving.

Later, mortgage-side filings in Myrtle Dupree’s proceedings cited adverse developments from Seilheimer.

That proves information crossed between cases.

It does not prove that the information was false.

It does not prove a conspiracy.

And it does not prove improper coordination.

It does raise a legitimate investigative question:

When information from one case is used to influence another case, who verifies that the imported information is complete, accurate and fairly characterized?

That question has now become even more important because the Seilheimer record appears in yet another dispute.

A THIRD FRONT: THE ZRUBEK ESTATE AND THE COLMAR EVICTION

The downstream use of Seilheimer-related findings later surfaced in an unrelated property and estate dispute involving 11618 Colmar Street in Dallas.

Henry J. Zrubek died March 24, 2026.

Hampton contends that he had maintained a longstanding business, consulting, housing and compensation relationship with Henry and that Colmar was part of that arrangement.

On June 1, 2026, Hampton submitted a written Notice of Claims Against the Zrubek estate asserting compensation, housing and property-related arrangements.

Those claims are disputed.

On June 25, counsel representing Zrubek family interests, H&L Properties and August Annie Holdings sent Hampton a termination and cease-and-desist letter concerning employment, property-management work, tenant communications and occupancy of Colmar.

That letter expressly invoked adverse statements and findings from In re Seilheimer when challenging Hampton’s credibility, pastoral role, judgment and involvement in legal matters.

The letter also rejected Hampton’s claimed pre-death arrangements with Henry.

The significance is not that counsel was prohibited from referring to a public court record.

The more important question is what happened when disputed or context-dependent conclusions from one proceeding acquired force in another, unrelated estate and property dispute.

Linda Zrubek’s later eviction affidavit stated that there was no written lease but acknowledged that Henry had permitted Hampton and Lori Hoehn to reside at the property in exchange for rent, labor or other services.

That acknowledgment does not establish Hampton’s broader claims concerning a retainer, compensation or proposed purchase arrangement.

But it does establish that some form of oral occupancy-and-services relationship existed.

August Annie Holdings later pursued possession of the property in Cause No. JPC-26-06070-31.

Trial materials also included a March 7, 2026 deed transferring Colmar to August Annie Holdings through Linda Zrubek acting under Henry’s power of attorney.

The broader Zrubek dispute raises separate probate, authority, property-transfer and contract questions that should not be decided merely by importing conclusions from Seilheimer.

R13 Tribune has therefore included the Zrubek/Colmar episode as another example of why the downstream use of legal findings matters.

WHEN A FINDING LEAVES THE CASE THAT CREATED IT

The common theme connecting Dupree, Seilheimer and the later Zrubek dispute is not that all three cases are legally identical.

They are not.

The common theme is the movement of information.

A statement is made.

An allegation is repeated.

A judge makes a finding for a particular purpose.

A lawyer quotes it elsewhere.

Another litigant relies upon it.

Eventually, the distinction between:

what was alleged,

what was actually proven,

what a court found,

and what remains disputed

can become increasingly difficult for outsiders to see.

That is a legitimate subject for journalism.

It is also one reason R13 Tribune follows a document-first publication standard.

ABOUT THE REPORTER — AND A NECESSARY DISCLOSURE

Pastor Rufus Hampton, Jr. is the founder and Senior Investigative Reporter of R13 Tribune and host of Law, Disorder, and Faith, Texas Size: You Be The Judge.

He spent more than ten years with the Internal Revenue Service as a Field Auditor and manager and worked in an investigative environment associated with the I-30 Savings and Loan scandal.

He has also spent more than thirty years working in paralegal and legal-support environments.

Those experiences inform his method of following documentary and financial trails, reconstructing transactions, identifying who performed particular acts and separating assumptions from proof.

Disclosure

Hampton is not a disinterested observer of every matter discussed in this investigation.

He has personally participated in portions of the Dupree and Seilheimer matters.

He was the subject of allegations and adverse findings in the Seilheimer bankruptcy proceedings.

He is also personally involved in the Zrubek/Colmar dispute.

R13 Tribune discloses those interests so readers can evaluate the reporting with that knowledge.

The existence of Hampton’s personal involvement is one reason the Tribune places particular emphasis on primary documents, outside review, responses from criticized parties and clearly distinguishing his contentions from independently established facts.

WHY R13 TRIBUNE IS ASKING FOR RESPONSES

Before final publication, R13 Tribune intends to provide the principal institutions and individuals materially discussed with an opportunity to comment on the factual questions concerning them.

That includes, where applicable:

U.S. Bank and its relevant RMAC trustee representatives;

Rocket Mortgage/Mr. Cooper and appropriate servicing representatives;

AVT Title Services;

Chuxiong Ding;

Thomas D. Powers or appropriate representatives;

the U.S. Trustee Program;

persons materially involved in the relevant guardianship proceedings;

and Zrubek-related representatives where their actions are materially discussed.

Responses may be incorporated into this article and may also be quoted, summarized or discussed on Law, Disorder, and Faith, Texas Size: You Be The Judge, subject to any advance agreement concerning attribution or off-the-record treatment.

A refusal to comment is not evidence of wrongdoing.

A failure to respond is not proof that an allegation is true.

Where a party declines to respond, R13 Tribune will report only that fact.

THE QUESTION AFTER THE SALE

The central question has changed since this investigation began.

Before October 6, the question was:

Can the home be preserved until the record is examined?

Now the house has been sold.

A purchaser claims title.

An eviction case has followed.

A federal action remains pending.

A Fifth Circuit appeal remains part of the broader history.

The mortgage accounting remains disputed.

The assignment chain contains questions that Alfred seeks to litigate.

Capacity questions continue to affect how earlier proceedings are understood.

And information developed in one case has repeatedly appeared in another.

The question now is larger:

When the system has already acted, who is willing to go back through the record and determine whether it acted on a complete and accurate understanding of the facts?

R13 Tribune does not claim to have the final answer.

Its purpose is to assemble the record, identify what can be proved, identify what remains disputed, ask those exercising authority to explain their actions, and give the public enough reliable information to evaluate the evidence.

That is the purpose of this investigation.

And that is why the sale of the house did not end the story.

R13 Tribune
Owned and published by R13 Multimedia

Providing Knowledge to God’s Sheep So That They Will Not Perish

Related podcast:

Law, Disorder, and Faith, Texas Size: You Be The Judge