Below is a practitioner-focused review of what can be gleaned from the Custer v. Dovenmuehle record you provided — not as a case summary, but as a toolbox for attacking mortgage Proofs of Claim in Chapter 13, both against Dovenmuehle and other servicers who use similar practices. I focus on what Custer alleged, what DMI admitted (or couldn’t), and how those themes translate into objections, discovery, and plan practice in consumer cases.

Summary:

Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=6076686

Abstract:
For decades low-income families have relied on the filing of individual income tax returns to claim critical social welfare benefits in the form of refundable tax credits, most notably the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit. But what happens to those families when the social safety net is not enough to meet their financial obligations, and they must seek a fresh start by filing for bankruptcy?

Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=6135608

Abstract:

Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5253527 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5253527

Abstract:

Summary:

In Reid v. Rodriguez , the Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of North Carolina dismissed, without prejudice, a pro se Chapter 7 debtor’s adversary proceeding against her landlord, holding that mandatory abstention under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2) applied—and that even if it did not, permissive abstention clearly would.

Summary:

Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=6023874 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.6023874