Charles Meeks v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC
681 F. App'x 791
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Meeks, through counsel, mailed a RESPA information request (RFI) to mortgage servicer Ocwen; Ocwen received it on Nov. 10, 2015 and an Ocwen agent signed the certified-mail return receipt. The certified receipt was attached to Meeks’s amended complaint.
- Ocwen sent a substantive response to the RFI on Nov. 19, 2015.
- On Apr. 29, 2016 Meeks’s counsel sent a "Notice of Error" (NOE) stating uncertainty whether Ocwen had received the RFI; Meeks then filed suit alleging violation of 12 C.F.R. § 1024.36(c) (failure to provide a written acknowledgment within five days) and seeking statutory damages under RESPA.
- Ocwen removed to federal court and moved to dismiss; the district court granted dismissal, finding the certified receipt satisfied § 1024.36(c) and Meeks lacked Article III standing for statutory damages.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed: (1) the certified-mail receipt constituted the required written acknowledgment under Regulation X on these facts; (2) Meeks suffered at most a bare procedural violation and thus lacked a concrete injury for Article III standing to pursue statutory damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a certified-mail return receipt qualifies as the "written response acknowledging receipt" required by 12 C.F.R. § 1024.36(c) | Meeks: the form of Ocwen’s communications did not satisfy the regulation’s acknowledgment requirement | Ocwen: the certified-mail return receipt, which was signed by Ocwen’s agent and received by Meeks’s counsel, satisfies the regulation | Held: The certified receipt satisfied § 1024.36(c) under the undisputed facts; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Meeks has Article III standing to seek RESPA statutory damages for an alleged procedural violation | Meeks: statutory damages available under RESPA; alleges mailing costs and seeks statutory damages | Ocwen: Meeks suffered no concrete, cognizable injury because he and counsel had actual knowledge of receipt; alleged procedural violation only | Held: No concrete injury; Spokeo bars standing for bare procedural violations; statutory-damages claim dismissed |
| Whether Meeks adequately pleaded compensable damages for a RESPA claim | Meeks: alleged mailing costs and attorney fees | Ocwen: damages are essential and Meeks’s NOE appears crafted to create a claim | Held: Alternative ground: Meeks failed to allege compensable damages; dismissal warranted |
| Whether Meeks should be granted leave to amend the complaint | Meeks: sought leave to amend to supplement statutory-damages claim (argued on appeal) | Ocwen: record shows no motion for leave to amend was made below | Held: Not considered—Meeks never sought leave in district court, so no sua sponte amendment required |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (procedural violations alone may be insufficient to satisfy Article III’s concreteness requirement)
- Renfroe v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 822 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2016) (damages are an essential element of a RESPA claim)