Annie Pauline Ward v. AMS Servicing, LLC, 606 F. App'x 506

Ward entered into a June 2006 mortgage loan to finance Atlanta residential property; note amount $221,000; Security Deed to MERS as nominee for Resmae.
In 2009–2010, Ward and Specialized Loan Servicing modified the loan; monthly payment set at $1,182.89.
In 2010, MERS conveyed the security interest to FCDB SNPWL Trust; AMS serves as loan servicer for FCDB.
Ward filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy; FCDB sought relief from stay to foreclose; a 2013 consent order resolved post-petition arrears.
The 2013 consent order fixed post-petition arrearage at $11,881.55 (payments through May 2013 plus fees) and required payment to AMS; Ward later sued AMS in district court alleging FDCPA misstatement of monthly payments; district court dismissed based on judicial estoppel, which Ward appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether judicial estoppel bars Ward’s FDCPA claim	Ward contends estoppel doesn’t apply because the prior figure was in a consent decree, not sworn testimony.	AMS argues Ward’s position is inconsistent and the consent decree can support estoppel.	Yes; estoppel bars the claim.
Whether the consent decree suffices to invoke judicial estoppel despite lack of oath	Ward asserts the decree was not made under oath, so estoppel should not apply.	AMS contends the doctrine applies flexibly; consent decrees can trigger estoppel.	Consent decree can trigger estoppel; prior inconsistency supports estoppel.

New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001) (court may invoke judicial estoppel based on inconsistent positions to protect judicial integrity)
Burnes v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., 291 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2002) (two-factor approach not inflexible; considers all circumstances)
Robinson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 595 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for judicial-estoppel application)
Am. Dental Ass’n v. Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2010) (standard for reviewing motion to dismiss and procedural mapping)