Charles E. Woide v. Federal National Mortgage Association
705 F. App'x 832
11th Cir.2017Background
- Charles and Susannah Woide (pro se) sued Fannie Mae, Choice Legal Group, P.A., and Burr & Forman LLP under TILA, FDCPA, and Florida’s FCCPA, alleging the defendants wrongly attempted to enforce a mortgage after the Woides rescinded their loan.
- The Woides claimed (1) the 2007 note and mortgage were not consummated for TILA purposes, and (2) they validly rescinded the loan by notice in April 2015.
- District court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim and denied reconsideration; dismissal was with prejudice.
- On appeal the Woides argued the district court misapplied TILA consummation rules, wrongly refused to give preclusive effect to a 2015 state-court order, and improperly dismissed with prejudice without leave to amend.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed, concluding the transaction was consummated in 2007, the three-year TILA rescission period expired in 2010, and the 2015 notice could not rescind the obligations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2007 loan was "consummated" under TILA | Woide: signing did not create consummation; state-law formation lacking so TILA rescission not time-barred | Defendants: consummation occurred when Woides signed the note and mortgage in 2007; TILA rescission period expired in 2010 | Transaction consummated in 2007 for TILA purposes; rescission period expired in 2010 |
| Whether Woides’ April 2015 notice validly rescinded under 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f) | Woide: 2015 notice rescinded the obligations despite passage of time | Defendants: rescission period is statutory and expiratory; 2015 notice ineffective | 2015 notice ineffective; right to rescind expired three years after consummation |
| Whether a 2015 state-court order precludes relitigation (res judicata / collateral estoppel) | Woide: district court should have given preclusive effect to state-court finding that the loan was not consummated | Defendants: Woides failed to demonstrate identity of parties, final judgment on merits, or that the issue was actually litigated | Preclusion doctrines not applied: Woides did not show the state order was final, involved identical parties/claims, or actually litigated the identical issue |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice without leave to amend was erroneous | Woide: should have been granted leave to amend given pro se status | Defendants: amendment would not cure defect because all claims hinge on non-consummation or valid rescission, both rejected | Dismissal with prejudice proper because further amendment would not cure the pleading defects; reconsideration denial not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Bragg v. Bill Heard Chevrolet, Inc., 374 F.3d 1060 (11th Cir.) (consummation occurs when consumer becomes contractually obligated for TILA purposes)
- Beach v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, 523 U.S. 410 (1998) (TILA rescission is time-barred after three years under § 1635(f))
- Williams v. Homestake Mortg. Co., 968 F.2d 1137 (11th Cir.) (rescission effectuated by notice to creditor)
- Bank v. Pitt, 928 F.2d 1108 (11th Cir.) (plaintiffs should be given leave to amend unless amendment would be futile)
- Quinn v. Monroe Cty., 330 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir.) (federal courts give preclusive effect to state-court judgments only when state-law preclusion elements are met)
- Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Dolgencorp, LLC, 746 F.3d 1008 (11th Cir.) (Florida collateral estoppel requires identical issue, full litigation, same parties/privities, and final decision)