of Coxson, 43 F.3d 189, 194 (5th Cir.1995). The plaintiff in Coxson obtained a loan by executing a deed of trust on his property, defaulted on his mortgage payments, and filed for bankruptcy. Id. The bankruptcy court entered an agreed order that conditioned the automatic stay on the debtor’s timely mortgage payments. A few months after the order was entered, the defendants sent Coxson notice that he was in default and moved to foreclose. In response to the defendants’ foreclosure efforts, Coxson filed an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court, claiming that the loan documents violated the TILA. The court held that Coxson’s acts were defensive because they were in response to the defendants’ proof of claim filed in the bankruptcy court. Id. (citing In re Jones, 122 B.R. at 249) (<HOLDING>). “[T]he filing of a proof of claim, by its
holding that debtors allegation that mortgage holder failed to provide him with the statutorily required notice of foreclosure was sufficient to state a claim for wrongful foreclosure holding impairment of secured creditors foreclosure remedy permissible holding that 24 foreclosure was substantial under the facts of that case holding that the recoupment claim was raised defensively in response to the creditors foreclosure efforts holding that a failure to comply with the foreclosure statutes invalidates a foreclosure sale