The race to foreclose

A Dallas home is scheduled for an October 6 sale while a federal appeal remains pending. A separate bankruptcy and guardianship record raises unresolved questions about probate, title, mortgage claims, capacity, the handling of an elderly debtor's money and property, and the information that moved from bankruptcy into guardianship.

R13 Tribune has assembled those questions into planned referrals to federal, state, and local authorities.

About the investigative reporter

Pastor Rufus Hampton is an investigative reporter for R13 Tribune. He spent more than ten years with the Internal Revenue Service as a Field Auditor and manager and worked on the IRS investigative team connected with the I-30 Savings and Loan scandal. He has also worked for more than thirty years in paralegal and legal-support roles. Those experiences inform his method of reconstructing transactions, following documentary and financial trails, identifying who performed particular acts, distinguishing assumptions from proof, and comparing accounts against contemporaneous records.

Six days before a foreclosure sale

On September 15, 2026, a foreclosure notice was posted for 12630 Hallum Drive in Dallas. The sale is scheduled for October 6 at noon. The property sits at the center of litigation involving Myrtle Dupree, her son Alfred Dupree III, Rushmore Servicing, and U.S. Bank National Association in its asserted trustee capacity.

Myrtle's appeal, Fifth Circuit No. 26-10237, challenges the handling and dismissal of her bankruptcy and related adversary proceeding. The appellate issues include competency and protective procedures under Rule 17(c), the transition after counsel withdrew, the characterization of dismissal as with prejudice, and the district court's treatment of objections. The Fifth Circuit previously denied a stay request on June 1, 2026. A new foreclosure notice was posted after that ruling.

Alfred filed a separate Chapter 13 case on June 2, 2026. The bankruptcy court later terminated the automatic stay as to the Hallum property and granted in-rem relief. The court denied reconsideration in early September. Those orders matter: the existence of an appeal or a prepared adversary complaint does not, by itself, automatically stop an October 6 foreclosure.

The immediate question is therefore procedural and practical: whether the property should be preserved long enough for courts to address pending requests for relief and unresolved accounting or enforcement issues before an irreversible sale occurs. R13 Tribune does not report that the presently scheduled foreclosure is automatically unlawful.

Record source: September 15, 2026 foreclosure notice; Alfred Dupree bankruptcy stay-relief and reconsideration orders; Myrtle Dupree Fifth Circuit No. 26-10237 materials reviewed by R13 Tribune.

A $40,000 loan and a $232,916.40 claim

The underlying Dupree Texas home-equity note was executed in 1999 for $40,000. In Alfred's 2026 bankruptcy, Claim No. 14 asserts a secured claim of $232,916.40 against the Hallum property. The claim lists $55,603.21 in principal, $70,486.11 in interest, $41,803.61 in prepetition fees and costs, and $65,475.31 in escrow deficiency or funds advanced, less $451.84 in funds on hand.

Those figures do not establish overcharging or an invalid lien. They do make a complete life-of-loan accounting a central reporting question: payments, credits, interest calculations, escrow advances, taxes, insurance, legal expenses, acceleration history, modifications, and servicing transfers should be capable of reconstruction from the records supporting the claim.

The lender has authority to proceed — but the merits questions remain separate

The bankruptcy court granted stay relief and in-rem relief in Alfred's case, and the reconsideration motion was denied. Myrtle's earlier stay request was denied by the Fifth Circuit. Those rulings must be reported alongside the borrowers' challenges. A court order permitting foreclosure is not the same thing as a judicial finding resolving every separate accounting, notice, lien, home-equity, acceleration, or servicing issue the borrowers have attempted to raise.

The public-interest issue is whether the pending judicial process will address those disputes before the property is sold, and what remedies would remain afterward if a borrower later prevails on a material issue.

Myrtle's appeal is about process before it is about the mortgage

Myrtle's Fifth Circuit appeal does not simply ask an appellate court to declare the mortgage invalid. Its central themes are procedural: competency concerns, representation, Rule 17(c), dismissal, and the treatment of objections. R13 Tribune distinguishes those appellate issues from the separate question whether any mortgage defense ultimately succeeds.

An appeal does not itself stay foreclosure. That is why the emergency-relief requests matter. The courts, not this publication, determine whether the legal standards for a stay or injunction are satisfied.

Then there is Donald Seilheimer

The Dupree dispute becomes more consequential when read beside a separate bankruptcy handled by the same Chapter 13 standing trustee: In re Donald Roy Seilheimer, Case No. 23-30671-SGJ-13. The cases are not legally identical, and a connection between them does not establish conspiracy, collusion, bias, or wrongdoing. But the record shows that information from the Dupree matter was expressly used in the Seilheimer matter, and later Seilheimer developments were cited in Dupree-related litigation.

Donald inherited interests in two Dallas properties from his mother, Shiela O'Neal Seilheimer: 1509 Perryton Drive and 2910 Perryton Drive. The bankruptcy court found that 2910 was foreclosed on February 1, 2022 for $152,500, producing $62,421.82 in excess proceeds. The court also found that Shiela's probate had not been completed and that letters testamentary had not issued.

The probate record was unfinished, not nonexistent

Shiela's Dallas County probate, Cause No. PR-17-01004-1, was opened in 2017. The docket reflects an order admitting the will and Donald's oath. A December 20, 2017 order denied issuance of letters until compliance with notice requirements, followed the next day by an order directing the clerk to disregard the prior order and allowing letters after compliance. The probate court later required an inventory and appraisement and set a show-cause proceeding when the inventory remained unfiled.

The later bankruptcy record treated the absence of issued letters and unfinished probate filings as important. At the same time, Texas law generally recognizes that devised property can vest at death subject to administration and estate debts. The result is not a simple either-or proposition. Donald could have an inherited interest while questions remained about estate administration, creditor claims, mortgage obligations, record title, and authority to convey or administer property.

Powers knew the probate was unfinished — and described a path to finish it

At the August 21, 2023 hearing, Chapter 13 Trustee Thomas Powers discussed the missing probate paperwork with Donald and described completion as relatively simple. At the August 28 hearing, Powers told the court that the probate could be completed and that Donald, as executor, could then execute a deed to himself if necessary to clear the title line.

That testimony does not establish that Powers personally had a legal duty to complete Shiela's probate. It does establish that the unfinished probate and title issue were known and were viewed as potentially curable. That makes it fair to ask why the underlying probate, foreclosure, title, and Bankruptcy Code § 541 issues were not brought to a final merits determination before later proceedings focused on turnover, sanctions, contempt, guardianship, and sale of the remaining home.

Record source: August 21, 2023 transcript, Seilheimer Docket 126, pp. 212–213; August 28, 2023 transcript, Docket 127, pp. 47–48.

The adversary proceeding the court described

At a September 13, 2023 status conference, the bankruptcy court described an adversary proceeding as a vehicle through which probate evidence, foreclosure evidence, money-tracing evidence, and legal argument under § 541 could be presented before deciding whether disputed property belonged in the bankruptcy estate or should return to probate for determination there.

R13 Tribune has not located, in the records reviewed to date, a final adversary judgment in Donald's 2023 bankruptcy deciding those underlying probate, foreclosure, and § 541 questions. That absence does not establish that the bankruptcy court was required to initiate such litigation on its own. It does create a concrete question for the planned federal supervisory review: why did the merits procedure described by the court not become the vehicle for a final resolution of the foundational ownership dispute?

What was Donald told the recovered money would do?

The record uses materially different descriptions at different points. On June 20, 2023, the bankruptcy court said the 2910 excess proceeds were nonexempt assets that should have been available to Donald's general creditor body and said Powers was duty bound to pursue them.

On August 28, Powers asked Donald what he wanted Hampton to do with approximately $44,000 that had been transferred. Donald said he wanted it back. Under questioning by Hampton, Donald said he thought the money would be used in his best interest and identified that interest as keeping the house where he lived. Powers also told the court that, if funds came back into the estate and Donald was receiving help from probate court, he envisioned dismissing the case and paying Donald the money.

These statements may be legally reconcilable depending on the posture of the case, allowed claims, plan administration, dismissal, and ownership of the funds. R13 Tribune does not report that Powers or the court promised Donald an unrestricted personal distribution. The investigative question is what Donald understood at the time he was asked to demand return of the money and whether the distinction between creditor administration and a later possible return to Donald was explained clearly.

The investigation that preceded the bankruptcy — and the legal plan that followed

The chronology surrounding the April 19, 2023 transfer is more complicated than the transfer date alone. The U.S. Trustee's August 9, 2023 objection states that Texas Capital Bank referred Pastor Rufus Hampton to Dallas Police for potential elder financial abuse and that $44,210.91 was transferred from Donald's account to Rufus Management on April 19, while the Chapter 13 case filed April 4 was pending. At the September 21 evidentiary hearing, Hampton told the bankruptcy court that the transfer transaction had been entered on April 1 and that the bank delayed it while Dallas Police investigated. The court responded that the point was not relevant to the issue then being addressed. R13 Tribune treats Hampton's statement about the April 1 authorization as testimony, not as a substitute for the bank's transaction records.

Hampton's January 23, 2024 written communication to Acting Assistant U.S. Trustee Elizabeth Young identified the investigator as Dallas Police Detective Ryan McCarrick and stated that McCarrick had investigated the elder-fraud referral and cleared Hampton of wrongdoing before the bank released the money on April 19. R13 Tribune has not yet obtained the Dallas Police investigative file or a written police disposition. Accordingly, the article reports that as Hampton's contemporaneous documented representation and asks Dallas Police to retrieve and compare its own 2023 file with the later bankruptcy record.

The timing matters because Hampton contends that, absent the bank hold and police investigation, the transfer would have been completed before Donald filed bankruptcy on April 4. Existing materials are not fully consistent on the expected execution date: Hampton's January 2024 communication and September 2023 testimony identify April 1 as the authorization date, while he now recalls an expected April 3 turnover. The bank's wire authorization, hold, fraud-referral, and release records are therefore essential before R13 Tribune states a definitive prepetition execution date.

Why Jack Peacock was selected — a documented foreclosure-litigation strategy

The next part of the chronology is also documented in the bankruptcy transcript. At the July 17, 2023 hearing, Hampton testified that attorney Jack B. Peacock Jr. of Gagnon, Peacock & Vereeke, P.C. had agreed to take the matter for an initial $10,000 retainer plus $2,000 per month. Hampton testified that the bank's hold prevented access to the money needed for the retainer and that Peacock proposed litigation in state or federal court with a restraining order to stop the foreclosure while the underlying case was resolved. Hampton further testified that the plan was not to continue the bankruptcy as the principal foreclosure strategy.

The choice of Peacock was not random. The firm's current public materials identify Peacock as managing partner and list wrongful foreclosure, insurance and banking litigation, and consumer protection among his practice areas. Peacock's attorney profile states that when a mortgage company is believed to be attempting a wrongful foreclosure, the firm's usual approach is to file suit and ask the court for a restraining order. The firm's wrongful-foreclosure materials also state that a large part of its litigation practice concerns wrongful foreclosure, predatory lending, and consumer fraud, and that in many cases it seeks to help homeowners avoid foreclosure without resorting to bankruptcy. Those public descriptions closely match the strategy Hampton described to the bankruptcy court in 2023.

Hampton says the contemplated representation was intended to address several connected objectives: protect 1509 Perryton from foreclosure; examine the Option One-originated mortgage and any wrongful-foreclosure or predatory-lending issues; pursue claims arising from the prior foreclosure of 2910 Perryton; address the lockout and property dispute; and complete or otherwise address matters in Shiela Seilheimer's unfinished probate estate, including filing costs and title issues. The transcript independently corroborates the Peacock fee proposal, the 1509 foreclosure objective, the 2910 connection, and the proposed injunction strategy. The broader probate-fee and lockout objectives presently rest on Hampton's account and should be confirmed through Peacock's contemporaneous intake or engagement records.

Dismissal, reinstatement, and the claimed lost opportunity

Donald's Chapter 13 case was dismissed April 21, 2023. Powers filed a motion on April 24 seeking to amend the dismissal to make it with prejudice for two years. On May 2, after learning of possible foreclosure-surplus proceeds, Powers filed an amended motion that also discussed Hampton's involvement in the separate Dupree matter and expressed concern that Donald might be relying on questionable advice. After a May 11 hearing, the bankruptcy court reinstated Donald's case by written order entered May 17.

That sequence supports investigation of a lost-opportunity theory, but it does not by itself prove causation. The court — not Powers — entered the reinstatement order, and a state or federal court would still have had to decide whether Donald qualified for a temporary restraining order or other relief. The appropriate question is narrower: did Powers's effort to undo the dismissal, and the resulting continuation of bankruptcy proceedings, materially interfere with or prevent Donald from implementing an already-developed plan to retain specialized foreclosure counsel and seek injunctive relief for 1509 while litigating the 2910, mortgage, lockout, probate, and related claims?

R13 Tribune is requesting Peacock's contemporaneous intake notes, engagement or proposed engagement documents, communications, fee proposal, identification of the claims he was asked to evaluate, and any record explaining why the representation did not proceed. Those materials could confirm or contradict the claimed lost opportunity and should be obtained before attributing the ultimate loss of 1509 to any particular person.

Record sources for this section: Seilheimer Docket 73 and Docket 126, July 17–August 21 transcript at approximately pp. 30–31; Docket 18, Powers's May 2, 2023 amended motion; Docket 23, May 17, 2023 reinstatement order; Docket 64, U.S. Trustee August 9, 2023 objection; Docket 128, September 21, 2023 transcript at approximately pp. 16–17; Hampton's January 23, 2024 email reproduced in a March 5, 2024 State Bar response; Gagnon, Peacock & Vereeke official attorney-profile and wrongful-foreclosure pages, accessed October 1, 2026.

From bankruptcy to guardianship: a documented referral

Donald's March 26, 2024 motion to dismiss the temporary guardianship states that the Dallas County Probate Court Investigation Department received a community referral from Thomas Powers, Chapter 13 Trustee. The motion says court investigator Alma Garcia-Torrez visited Donald on September 13, 2023 and, based on her interview and observations, concluded that he was substantially unable to provide for basic needs, manage his physical health, or manage financial affairs, and that feasible alternatives did not appear available.

That motion establishes that Donald's attorney identified Powers as the source of the community referral. R13 Tribune has not yet located the original referral form or information letter, its attachments, or the complete follow-up communications. The planned federal complaint therefore asks investigators to obtain and preserve those materials so the precise information transmitted from bankruptcy into guardianship can be compared with the underlying record.

The existence of a guardianship referral is not itself evidence of improper ex parte communication or misconduct. The unresolved questions are what was communicated, under what authority, what supporting material accompanied it, whether disputed or contrary evidence was also supplied, and how the information was used in later guardianship decisions.

What the November 1 guardianship order actually found

On November 1, 2023, the Dallas County probate court appointed a temporary guardian of Donald's person and estate. The order found substantial evidence that Donald "may be" an incapacitated person and probable cause that his person and estate were in imminent danger requiring immediate appointment of a temporary guardian. The order also restricted contact between Donald and Pastor Rufus Hampton and Lori Hoehn and suspended other decision-making powers while the temporary order remained in effect.

Those findings were serious, but the temporary order should not be rewritten as a final permanent adjudication of incapacity. The later record shows that capacity remained contested and that the probate court sought additional medical evidence.

A later medical evaluation pointed the other way

Donald's March 26, 2024 motion to dismiss the temporary guardianship, filed through his attorney, reported that a February 23, 2024 Certified Medical Examination by Dr. R. Scott Staton concluded that Donald should have all rights restored. The motion described Staton as finding Donald capable across a broad range of personal, medical, financial, contractual, litigation, and daily-life decisions.

R13 Tribune is careful about the source: the material presently reviewed is Donald's motion describing Dr. Staton's examination. The standalone Staton examination itself has not yet been located in the reviewed file set. The article therefore reports what the motion represented, not an independently authenticated medical conclusion.

The Clayton order — and the unanswered question of whether the exam happened

On April 29, 2024, while the motion to dismiss the guardianship was pending, the probate court found that additional information was needed regarding Donald's mental capacity and appointed Dr. Lisa Clayton to perform an independent neuropsychiatric examination. The written order required the attorney ad litem to schedule the examination within two days, set a deadline for the examination, required a written report to the court and attorneys of record, barred other persons from being present, and prohibited counsel or parties from supplying information to Dr. Clayton unless she requested it.

The records reviewed by R13 Tribune do not yet establish whether Dr. Clayton examined Donald or issued the required report. Pastor Rufus reports that she did not contact Donald, but that assertion requires independent verification. The planned referrals ask investigators to obtain scheduling communications, billing records, any report, any cancellation or refusal, and any explanation for nonperformance.

A missing examination would not prove that Donald would have regained full capacity or that the sale of 1509 would have been stopped. The property sale process was already underway. The narrower question is whether a court-ordered capacity evaluation the judge considered necessary was completed and considered before later guardianship decisions became final.

Dallas County probate rules provide a procedural checklist

The Dallas County Statutory Probate Court Local Rules, approved by the Supreme Court of Texas, provide an objective framework for reconstructing what occurred. Among other things, Rules 2.07 and 2.08 address notice to the probate court when a party files bankruptcy and when the bankruptcy concludes or the automatic stay is lifted as to the probate matter. Rule 4.06 addresses the attorney ad litem's continuing participation and service. Rule 6.03 addresses temporary-guardianship inventory and final-account timing. Rule 4.05(f) restricts improper private merits communications in contested proceedings while recognizing communications authorized by law or rule.

R13 Tribune is not reporting that any probate judge, investigator, guardian, attorney ad litem, or other participant violated these rules. The planned complaint asks reviewers to use the rules as a checklist: Was a Suggestion of Bankruptcy filed when required? Were stay changes reported? Was the attorney ad litem served and involved? Were the temporary guardian's inventory, extensions, sale records, closing statement, mortgage payoff, professional fees, final account, and distributions timely and complete? What procedural authority governed communications from the bankruptcy trustee to the probate investigation department?

1509 Perryton was sold while the capacity dispute remained part of the record

The guardianship record shows that the temporary guardian applied to sell 1509 Perryton, the home Donald had identified as the property he wanted to keep. A later report of sale states that an order approving sale was entered February 12, 2024. The property was placed under contract in March for $215,000, subject to probate-court confirmation.

The timing requires care. The sale process preceded the April 29 Clayton order. For that reason, R13 Tribune does not claim that a favorable Clayton examination necessarily would have prevented the sale. The report instead asks whether the court received the independent capacity evidence it specifically ordered before the guardianship and property disposition were completed, and whether less restrictive alternatives were reconsidered in light of the Staton evidence reported by Donald's attorney.

The Dupree-to-Seilheimer connection — and the return trip

Powers's May 2, 2023 amended motion in Seilheimer expressly discussed Pastor Rufus Hampton's involvement in the separate Dupree matter, alleged that Hampton had advised Alfred Dupree contrary to bankruptcy counsel, and referenced Alfred's decision not to accept a lender settlement. The filing used that history as part of the factual basis for concern that Donald might also be relying on questionable advice.

Later, Rushmore filings in Myrtle Dupree's district-court appeals cited adverse developments from the Seilheimer matter. That chronology establishes cross-case use of information. It does not, by itself, establish that the information was false, that anyone coordinated improperly, or that any actor was biased. The planned federal complaint asks a narrower question: whether conclusions imported from one matter were independently tested against the complete record before they were used in another.

Region 6 participated in the Seilheimer proceeding — why the complaint seeks national review

At the August 28, 2023 hearing, Elizabeth Young appeared for the U.S. Trustee and stated that she "echo[ed] Mr. Powers' comments" while explaining why the U.S. Trustee had objected to dismissal and believed the case should remain open while the funds issue was addressed. That statement is part of the transcript. It is not, standing alone, evidence that Young or Region 6 acted improperly.

It does, however, explain the structure of the planned complaint. Rather than asking personnel who materially participated in the underlying events to be the sole merits reviewers, the complaint is addressed to the Attorney General of the United States and requests assignment to the Executive Office for U.S. Trustees, its oversight function, or another appropriate Department of Justice component using personnel who were not materially involved in the disputed Region 6 proceedings. The U.S. Trustee Program is the Department of Justice component responsible for overseeing bankruptcy case administration and private trustees.

The complaint is prepared — it has not yet produced a government finding

R13 Tribune and the individuals involved have assembled an initial Complaint and Request for Independent Supervisory Investigation concerning Chapter 13 Standing Trustee Thomas D. Powers. The complaint asks for preservation of records and independent fact-finding. It does not ask the Attorney General to presume misconduct, conspiracy, retaliation, intentional sabotage, or bad faith.

Among the requested inquiries are the original Powers guardianship referral; the probate and title status of 2910 and 1509; the handling of Deutsche Bank's 1509 proof of claim; the adversary procedure identified by the bankruptcy court; what Donald was told about recovered proceeds; the Staton and Clayton capacity evidence; Dallas County probate-rule compliance; temporary-guardian accounting; and whether cross-case conclusions from Dupree and Seilheimer were independently verified.

As of this article, the complaint and related referral packages are being prepared for transmission. R13 Tribune does not report that the Attorney General, the Department of Justice, Dallas Police, Adult Protective Services, the Texas Attorney General, Senator Cruz, Ambassador Walker, or any other authority has opened an investigation or reached a conclusion unless and until that is independently confirmed.

Where the record will be sent

The record raises different questions for different institutions. R13 Tribune therefore does not propose sending one accusation to every agency. The planned referrals are tailored to each recipient's jurisdiction and are requests for review, not demands for a predetermined result.

U.S. Attorney General / Department of Justice

The U.S. Trustee Program is a Department of Justice component that oversees bankruptcy administration and private trustees. The request will ask that office to assign an independent national-level supervisory review of the Powers issues, using personnel not materially involved in the disputed Region 6 events; to preserve records; and to determine whether applicable trustee and Program standards were followed.

Ambassador Herschel Walker

A separate transmission letter has been prepared asking him to forward the federal complaint to the Attorney General. The request will ask him to transmit the complaint and supporting record to the Attorney General and to request appropriate independent Department of Justice consideration. The letter does not ask the Ambassador to decide the merits.

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz

His office provides federal-agency casework for Texans and accepts information concerning waste, fraud, abuse, or other misconduct. Senate offices also observe limits on intervention in pending court matters. The request will ask the office to assist with communication to the appropriate federal agency and, where institutionally appropriate, to consider bankruptcy-administration oversight questions without intervening in judicial decision-making.

Texas Attorney General — Consumer Protection

The Texas Attorney General accepts mortgage-related consumer complaints and uses complaints to monitor consumer-protection issues statewide. The request will ask that office to review the legacy Option One-related mortgage and servicing issues as consumer-protection questions, including whether similar complaints or patterns exist. This referral will not assert that the two loans alone prove a statewide pattern.

Dallas Police Department — Elder Fraud Squad

Dallas Police states that its Elder Fraud Squad investigates financially motivated offenses against victims age 65 and older. The request will ask the squad to review the complete Donald Seilheimer financial chronology — not just one transfer — and to determine independently whether any financially motivated offense against Donald is supported by the evidence, by any person or entity.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services — Adult Protective Services

Texas Adult Protective Services investigates abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation of adults age 65 and older and qualifying adults with disabilities living in the community. The request will ask APS to review whether Donald, as an older adult whose capacity and finances were the subject of court proceedings, experienced abuse, neglect, self-neglect, or financial exploitation within APS jurisdiction, and whether protective or referral action is appropriate.

Dallas County District Attorney, or the appropriate criminal prosecutor

Any criminal assessment should follow evidence and jurisdiction, not publication labels. If Dallas Police or another investigating agency identifies evidence supporting a criminal offense, the request will ask for referral to the appropriate prosecuting authority for an independent charging decision.

The appropriate mortgage regulator

Mortgage regulatory jurisdiction depends on the exact entity and capacity involved — national bank, mortgage company, servicer, or other regulated actor. After entity-by-entity jurisdiction is confirmed, the request will submit the loan-level accounting, servicing, notice, and enforcement issues to the regulator with authority over the relevant institution. No regulator will be asked to assume that a disputed mortgage is invalid.

Dallas Police Elder Fraud: retrieve the 2023 investigation before starting from scratch

Dallas Police is not being asked to begin with an assumption that Hampton committed elder fraud. Texas Capital had already referred Hampton to Dallas Police in 2023. The U.S. Trustee's August 9 objection confirms the bank referral. Hampton later identified Detective Ryan McCarrick as the investigator and stated in writing that McCarrick cleared him of wrongdoing before the bank released the funds on April 19. The police file itself has not yet been obtained, so R13 Tribune does not independently characterize its disposition. The planned referral asks Dallas Police first to retrieve its own 2023 file, confirm the referral, interviews, findings, and disposition, and then compare that contemporaneous investigation with the later bankruptcy, probate, and guardianship record.

The referral should not instruct police whom to suspect. It should expressly invite investigators to follow the evidence wherever it leads, including evidence favorable or unfavorable to Pastor Rufus, Powers, guardianship participants, lenders, servicers, lawyers, family members, or anyone else whose conduct becomes relevant. The question is whether the complete record establishes a financially motivated offense against Donald — not whether a newspaper can assign criminal liability.

Official Dallas Police information: Elder Fraud Squad, 1400 Botham Jean Blvd., Dallas, Texas 75215; 469-816-1878; elderfraud@dallas.gov. R13 Tribune will verify delivery information again at the time of submission.

Adult Protective Services: was an older adult adequately protected?

Texas Adult Protective Services, a division of the Department of Family and Protective Services, investigates allegations of abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation involving adults age 65 and older and certain adults with disabilities living in the community. APS defines financial exploitation in terms of using or attempting to use a vulnerable adult's money, property, or identity for personal gain or benefit without informed consent.

The planned APS referral will therefore be framed around Donald, not around proving a mortgage case. It will ask whether an older adult whose finances, capacity, housing, probate estate, and personal autonomy were simultaneously in dispute was adequately protected from abuse, neglect, self-neglect, or financial exploitation; whether anyone with the type of relationship covered by APS law misused Donald's assets or decision-making vulnerability; and whether the record warrants services, protective action, or referral to law enforcement.

APS should receive the capacity and guardianship chronology together with the financial chronology so that Donald's expressed wishes, his reported medical evaluations, the restrictions imposed on him, the sale of his home, and the disposition of funds are not viewed in isolation.

Texas Attorney General: a different question — consumer protection and mortgage patterns

The planned Texas Attorney General submission will not duplicate the federal trustee complaint. The Texas Attorney General accepts mortgage-related consumer complaints and identifies other mortgage regulators depending on whether the relevant institution is a national bank, state-licensed mortgage company or servicer, or another regulated lender.

The Texas submission will focus on the mortgage side: legacy Option One origination, servicing and enforcement history, life-of-loan accounting, foreclosure and notice issues, successor entities, and whether other Texas consumers — particularly older homeowners — have reported materially similar problems. Two case studies do not establish a statewide pattern. They can justify asking whether a pattern exists.

The common Option One originator: relevant, but not proof

The Dupree home-equity loan was originated by Option One Mortgage Corporation. The record developed in the Seilheimer matter also identifies Option One as the originator of the 1509 Perryton mortgage. That common originator is an objective connection worth investigating at the loan-record level. It does not establish that either loan was defective, that later holders or servicers inherited liability for every historical act, or that the two borrowers experienced the same conduct.

The appropriate inquiry is documentary: original underwriting and valuation records, loan terms, assignments, securitization or trust capacity where relevant, servicing transfers, modifications, acceleration and rescission history, escrow and corporate advances, foreclosure notices, legal fees, and the evidence supporting the amounts ultimately claimed.

What the planned federal complaint asks investigators to preserve

• Powers's nonprivileged emails, notes, referral records, internal memoranda, and communications concerning Donald Seilheimer, Alfred and Myrtle Dupree, Pastor Rufus Hampton, the disputed funds, and the probate and guardianship referral.
• The original Powers community-referral form or information letter to the Dallas County Probate Court Investigation Department, every attachment, cover communication, internal note, and follow-up communication.
• The complete Shiela Seilheimer probate record relevant to letters testamentary, inventory and appraisement, list of claims, show-cause proceedings, title, and any communications about completing probate.
• Nonprivileged records showing what examination was made of Deutsche Bank's 1509 proof of claim, including mortgage and title research and any decision whether to object or pursue an adversary proceeding.
• The 2910 foreclosure and surplus-disbursement file and the 1509 guardianship closing and title file.
• Records showing what Donald was told about the intended disposition of recovered proceeds and the distinction between administration for creditors and any possible later return to him.
• The Staton-related capacity materials and all records concerning scheduling, performance, cancellation, billing, or reporting for the court-ordered Clayton examination.
• The temporary guardian's inventory, extensions, sale records, closing statement, mortgage payoff, professional fees, final account, and distributions.

What is documented — and what is not yet established

Questions Thomas Powers should be given an opportunity to answer

1. What did Powers review before using the Dupree settlement and advice episode in his May 2, 2023 Seilheimer filing?
2. Did he review the actual settlement terms, releases, property value, mortgage defenses, and Alfred Dupree's reasons for declining the offer before relying on that episode?
3. What examination was made of Deutsche Bank's proof of claim and the underlying 1509 mortgage and title issues?
4. What precisely did Powers provide to the Dallas County Probate Court Investigation Department, and what contrary or qualifying evidence accompanied the referral?
5. After recognizing that Shiela's probate could be completed and title clarified, why was the merits procedure described by the bankruptcy court not used to obtain a final ruling on the probate, foreclosure, and § 541 dispute?
6. When Donald said he wanted the money back and wanted to keep 1509, what explanation had he received about creditor administration, dismissal, and whether recovered funds could actually be used to preserve the home?
7. Does Powers believe the later-developed Dupree mortgage record changes, qualifies, or confirms the premise about Pastor Rufus that appeared in the May 2, 2023 Seilheimer filing?

Questions the guardianship record should answer

8. What was contained in the original Powers community referral, and what documents supported it?
9. What medical and functional evidence supported the initial temporary guardianship and each later extension?
10. How was Dr. Staton's reported full-capacity conclusion evaluated?
11. Was the April 29, 2024 Clayton examination scheduled within the time ordered, performed, and reported? If not, why not, and who was informed?
12. Were bankruptcy notices and stay developments handled as required or applicable under Dallas County Local Rules 2.07 and 2.08?
13. Was the attorney ad litem served with and involved in all matters required by the local rules and court orders?
14. Do the temporary guardian's inventory, sale, closing, mortgage payoff, professional-fee, final-account, and distribution records reconcile completely?
15. What less restrictive alternatives were considered after Donald's attorney presented the Staton evidence and sought restoration of rights?

The question that remains

The strongest conclusion the present record supports is not that every foreclosure was wrongful or that every institutional actor acted improperly. It is that important issues remained unresolved while the consequences became increasingly difficult to reverse.

In Donald Seilheimer's matter, the bankruptcy court described a procedure capable of deciding the disputed probate, foreclosure, money, and § 541 questions. R13 Tribune has not located a final adversary judgment deciding that underlying controversy. Donald later entered a temporary guardianship; his attorney reported a medical examination favoring restoration of rights; the probate court ordered another independent examination; and 1509 was sold through the guardianship. The original Powers referral and the fate of the Clayton examination remain important missing pieces.

In the Dupree matter, another Dallas home is scheduled for foreclosure while federal appellate and bankruptcy-related disputes continue. The creditor has orders permitting it to proceed. The borrowers continue to raise accounting, enforcement, and procedural challenges. The courts will determine what legal relief, if any, remains available.

The planned referrals are designed to separate those questions by jurisdiction: bankruptcy administration to the Department of Justice; mortgage consumer-protection questions to the Texas Attorney General and appropriate regulators; Donald-specific elder financial questions to Dallas Police Elder Fraud; vulnerability, neglect, and exploitation questions to Texas Adult Protective Services; and any criminal charging decision to the appropriate prosecutor if investigators find evidence supporting one.

The purpose is not to substitute a publication for a court, police department, protective-services investigator, regulator, or prosecutor. It is to put the documented record in front of institutions authorized to answer questions the existing record has not resolved.

Right to respond

Thomas Powers or his counsel, the U.S. Trustee Program, U.S. Bank and Rushmore, the temporary guardian or counsel, the attorney ad litem where materially discussed, and other persons or institutions materially discussed in this article may respond to the specific questions that concern them. A substantive response will be incorporated fairly. If a recipient declines or does not respond by a stated deadline, this article will report only that fact and the method and date of the request.

Investigated and reported by Pastor Rufus Hampton, investigative reporter for R13 Tribune. He is a former IRS Field Auditor and manager, worked on the IRS investigative team connected with the I-30 Savings and Loan scandal, and has spent more than thirty years in paralegal and legal-support roles.

About R13 Tribune

R13 stands for Romans 13, the biblical passage addressing governing authority, responsibility, and accountability. For this publication, the reference reflects the principle that authority carries responsibility and that institutions entrusted with power should be examined in light of truth, justice, and their obligations to the people they serve.

Tribune also has a double meaning. In modern usage it describes a newspaper or public forum. Historically, a tribune was associated with representing the interests of ordinary people before powerful institutions. Together, R13 Tribune describes a faith-centered publication committed to examining the exercise of authority, making public records understandable, and giving people information they can use to evaluate institutions for themselves.