Justia U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Under Regulation X, 12 C.F. R. part 1024, which implements the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., a loan servicer’s duty to evaluate a borrower’s loss mitigation application is triggered only when the borrower submits the application more than 37 days before the foreclosure sale. At issue is whether Ocwen, a loan servicer, had a duty to evaluate an application for loss mitigation options submitted by the Borrowers when, at the time the application was submitted, a foreclosure sale of the Borrowers’ property was scheduled to occur in two days. The court concluded that Regulation X requires the court to measure the timeliness of the Borrowers’ application using the date the foreclosure sale was scheduled to occur when they submitted their complete application. Because the Borrowers’ application was untimely, the court agreed with the district court that Ocwen had no duty to evaluate the Borrowers’ loss mitigation application. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Ocwen on the Borrowers’ claim seeking to hold Ocwen liable for failing to evaluate their loss mitigation application. The court also affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to the Borrowers’ claim based on Ocwen’s inadequate response to their notice of error. The court agreed with the district court that to survive summary judgment the Borrowers had to present evidence that they suffered actual damages or were entitled to statutory damages and that they failed to do so. View "Lage v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC" on Justia Law

New York law required CitiMortgage to file within 30 days a certificate of discharge with the county clerk to record that plaintiff had satisfied his mortgage. N.Y. Real Prop. Law 275; N.Y. Real Prop. Acts. Law 1921. When CitiMortgage failed to record the satisfaction of the mortgage until more than 90 days after the date of satisfaction, plaintiff filed a putative class action against CitiMortgage. The district court dismissed plaintiff's complaint. The court agreed with CitiMortgage that plaintiff lacks standing to maintain this action. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because plaintiff has not alleged that CitiMortgage's violation of New York law caused or could cause him any harm. View "Nicklaw v. CitiMortgage, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the assignee of his mortgage after his servicer failed to provide a payoff balance. The Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1641(e)(1)(A), creates a cause of action against an assignee for a violation that is “apparent on the face of the disclosure statement provided in connection with [a mortgage] transaction pursuant to this subchapter.” The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's amended complaint because the failure to provide a payoff balance is not a violation apparent on the face of the disclosure statement. View "Evanto v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n" on Justia Law

The City filed three separate fair housing lawsuits against Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and Citigroup, alleging that each bank had engaged in a decade-long pattern of discriminatory lending by targeting minorities for predatory loans. Each complaint contained the same two causes of action: one claim arising under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq., as well as an unjust enrichment claim under Florida law. The district court dismissed the City's FHA claim. The court found that the City has constitutional standing to pursue its FHA claims; under controlling Supreme Court precedent, the “zone of interests” for the FHA extends as broadly as permitted under Article III of the Constitution, and therefore encompasses the City’s claim; while the court agreed with the district court that the FHA contains a proximate cause requirement, the court found that this analysis is based on principles drawn from the law of tort, and that the City has adequately alleged proximate cause; and the court concluded that the “continuing violation doctrine” can apply to the City’s claims, if they are adequately pled. The court concluded that the district court erred in dismissing the City’s federal claims with prejudice and in denying the City’s motion for leave to amend on the grounds of futility because the district court imposed too stringent a zone of interests test and wrongly applied the proximate cause analysis. The court affirmed the dismissal of the state law claim because the benefits the City allegedly conferred on the defendants were not sufficiently direct to plead an unjust enrichment claim under Florida law. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "City of Miami v. CitiGroup Inc." on Justia Law

The City filed three separate fair housing lawsuits against Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and Citigroup, alleging that each bank had engaged in a decade-long pattern of discriminatory lending by targeting minorities for predatory loans. Each complaint contained the same two causes of action: one claim arising under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq., as well as an unjust enrichment claim under Florida law. The district court dismissed the City's FHA claim. The court found that the City has constitutional standing to pursue its FHA claims; under controlling Supreme Court precedent, the “zone of interests” for the FHA extends as broadly as permitted under Article III of the Constitution, and therefore encompasses the City’s claim; while the court agreed with the district court that the FHA contains a proximate cause requirement, the court found that this analysis is based on principles drawn from the law of tort, and that the City has adequately alleged proximate cause; and the court concluded that the “continuing violation doctrine” can apply to the City’s claims, if they are adequately pled. The court concluded that the district court erred in dismissing the City’s federal claims with prejudice and in denying the City’s motion for leave to amend on the grounds of futility because the district court imposed too stringent a zone of interests test and wrongly applied the proximate cause analysis. The court affirmed the dismissal of the state law claim because the benefits the City allegedly conferred on the defendants were not sufficiently direct to plead an unjust enrichment claim under Florida law. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "City of Miami v. Wells Fargo & Co." on Justia Law

The City filed suit against the Bank, alleging that the Bank engaged in a decade-long pattern of discriminatory lending in the residential housing market that caused the City economic harm. The City asserts a claim arising under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq., as well as an unjust enrichment claim under Florida law. The district court dismissed the City's FHA claim with prejudice. The court found that the City has constitutional standing to pursue its FHA claims; under controlling Supreme Court precedent, the “zone of interests” for the FHA extends as broadly as permitted under Article III of the Constitution, and therefore encompasses the City’s claim; while the court agreed with the district court that the FHA contains a proximate cause requirement, the court found that this analysis is based on principles drawn from the law of tort, and that the City has adequately alleged proximate cause; and the court concluded that the “continuing violation doctrine” can apply to the City’s claims, if they are adequately pled. The court concluded that the district court erred in dismissing the City’s federal claims with prejudice and in denying the City’s motion for leave to amend on the grounds of futility because the district court imposed too stringent a zone of interests test and wrongly applied the proximate cause analysis. The court affirmed the dismissal of the state law claim because the benefits the City allegedly conferred on the defendants were not sufficiently direct to plead an unjust enrichment claim under Florida law. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "City of Miami v. Bank of America Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated individuals, alleging that Capital One violated certain provisions of the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692–1692p, by attempting to collect on defaulted or delinquent credit card accounts that Capital One had acquired from HSBC. The district court dismissed plaintiff's amended complaint. The court concluded that it need look no further than the statutory text to conclude that, under the plain language of the FDCPA, a bank (or any person or entity) does not qualify as a “debt collector” where the bank does not regularly collect or attempt to collect on debts “owed or due another” and where “the collection of any debts” is not “the principal purpose” of the bank’s business, even where the consumer’s debt was in default at the time the bank acquired it. In this case, the amended complaint’s factual matter establishes that Capital One’s collection efforts in this case related only to debts owed to it and that debt collection is only some part of, and not the principal purpose of, Capital One’s business. Therefore, Capital One's activity, as alleged by plaintiff, is not the activity of a “debt collector” under the FDCPA, and plaintiff cannot state a claim under the Act. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Davidson v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A." on Justia Law

The court previously affirmed the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s order granting debtor’s motion to strip Bank of America’s junior mortgage lien. The Supreme Court vacated the opinion and remanded the case for consideration in light of Bank of America, N.A. v. Caulkett. In Caulkett, the Supreme Court held “a debtor in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding may not void a junior mortgage lien under 11 U.S.C. 506(d) when the debt owed on a senior mortgage lien exceeds the current value of the collateral.” Consequently, in light of Caulkett, the court's own holding in In re McNeal and Folendore v. United States Small Business Administration are overruled. Accordingly, the district court erred in affirming the bankruptcy court’s grant of debtor’s motion to strip off Bank of America’s junior lien. The court denied Bank of America’s motion for summary reversal, vacated the district court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Bank of America v. Waits" on Justia Law

The Bank filed a claim with Travelers for the loss incurred with a long-time customer's default. The customer had pledged various assets as collateral for a loan including stock certificates representing shares in The Securance Group. The court held that, under Alabama law, a financial institution bond's definition of "counterfeit" - "an imitation which is intended to deceive and to be taken as an original" - does not encompass a duly authorized stock certificate procured under false pretenses. In this case, Certificate No. 11 at issue was fraudulently procured and, as such, valueless, it was an authentic document and thus not "counterfeit" under the terms of the bond. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Travelers. View "Bank of Brewton v. The Travelers Companies" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from plaintiff's suit against Wells Fargo after Wells Fargo closed her bank accounts and refused to return the money in her accounts. The court concluded that plaintiff defaulted on Wells Fargo’s counterclaim when she failed to file a timely answer. So her request for leave to file an out-of-time answer to Wells Fargo’s counterclaim should have been analyzed as a motion to set aside an entry of default under the more forgiving Rule 55(c) standard as opposed to the more exacting Rule 6(b)(1)(B) standard. Because plaintiff’s failure to respond to Wells Fargo’s counterclaim meant that the pleadings had not yet closed, the district court’s evaluation of Wells Fargo’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was premature. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's order granting Wells Fargo's motion for judgment on the pleadings and remanded for the district court to consider plaintiff's motion under Rule 55(c). Even if Wells Fargo's motion could have been properly considered as a motion for judgment on the pleadings, it should have been denied. Because the construction of a contract is a question of law for the court, the contents of the Agreement must be evaluated in determining whether Wells Fargo was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court also reversed the district court's order denying plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint and remanded for further proceedings because the district court was required to review the actual contract at issue in evaluating whether amendment of the complaint would necessarily be futile. Because the court reversed the order granting judgment on the pleadings for Wells Fargo, on which the award of attorney's fees was based, the court remanded the attorney's fee issue. View "Perez v. Wells Fargo" on Justia Law