Elizabeth H. Coursen v. Shapiro & Fishman, GP
588 F. App'x 882
11th Cir.2014Background
- In 2001 Coursen took out a mortgage and later defaulted; Washington Mutual Bank (WAMU) — represented by Shapiro, Fishman & Gache (SFG) — filed foreclosure in 2006.
- An assignment of mortgage (2006 AOM) to WAMU as attorney-in-fact for Fannie Mae was recorded in October 2006.
- WAMU submitted an affidavit from Dory Goebel supporting default and outstanding balance; the state court entered final foreclosure judgment on November 27, 2006.
- Coursen later sought loan modification, repeatedly attempted to vacate the 2006 judgment, and the foreclosure sale occurred in November 2011.
- Coursen sued various defendants in 2012 alleging FDUTPA, FDCPA, FCCPA, civil conspiracy, abuse of process, and RICO claims tied to the 2006 AOM and Goebel affidavit.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding claims barred by litigation privilege, collateral estoppel, statutes of limitations, lack of damages, and lack of causal connection; Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / Statute of limitations | Coursen argued alleged wrongful acts (2006 AOM, Goebel affidavit) produced continuing injury and discovery was delayed, so claims are timely. | Defendants argued claims accrued at 2006 judgment (or earlier) and statutes (1–4 years) bar the 2012 suit. | Claims accrued by Nov. 27, 2006; 2012 suit is time-barred. |
| Damages / Causation | Coursen claimed loss of home, equity, credit harm, and emotional distress caused by defendants’ misconduct. | Defendants showed foreclosure resulted from Coursen’s payment defaults, not defendants’ alleged misrepresentations. | No causal link; damages attributable to plaintiff’s defaults — claims fail. |
| Merits of fraud/RICO and discovery accrual | Coursen contended fraud concealed the scheme so RICO and related claims accrued later. | Defendants maintained RICO accrues on injury (foreclosure judgment), not later discovery of a pattern. | RICO accrues at injury; late discovery does not delay accrual; claims foreclosed. |
| Liability of specific defendants (LPS, FNIS, FNF) | Coursen alleged various entities participated in the wrongful conduct. | Defendants showed LPS did not exist in 2006; FNIS and FNF lacked factual connection to harm. | Summary judgment for these defendants due to lack of temporal or factual connection. |
Key Cases Cited
- Skop v. City of Atlanta, 485 F.3d 1130 (11th Cir. 2007) (summary judgment standard and view of evidence for nonmoving party)
- McCormick v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 333 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2003) (summary judgment appropriateness)
- Sandvik v. United States, 177 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 1999) (standard for equitable tolling — extraordinary circumstances)
- Olson v. Johnson, 961 So. 2d 356 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007) (statute of limitations for civil conspiracy)
- Callaway Land & Cattle Co. v. Banyon Lakes C. Corp., 831 So. 2d 204 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002) (abuse of process limitations)
- S. Motor Co. v. Doktorczyk, 957 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007) (FDUTPA statute of limitations)
- Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Ass., Inc., 107 S. Ct. 2759 (1987) (RICO statute of limitations applied)
- Rotella v. Wood, 120 S. Ct. 1075 (2000) (RICO claim accrual upon injury, not upon discovery of a pattern)