Frederick Brewster v. Wachovia Mortgage
699 F. App'x 705
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Brewster, proceeding pro se, sued over foreclosure-related issues against Wells Fargo alleging claims under the FDCPA, RESPA, and for quiet title; the district court granted summary judgment for Wells Fargo.
- Brewster sought to file a surreply and moved to alter or amend the judgment after summary judgment; both motions were denied by the district court.
- On appeal, Brewster argued Wells Fargo was a "debt collector" under the FDCPA, that Wells Fargo failed to properly respond to a RESPA inquiry about the loan owner, and that he had superior title (quiet title).
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo and reviewed denials of procedural motions for abuse of discretion.
- The panel affirmed: Brewster failed to raise genuine disputes of material fact on the FDCPA, RESPA, and quiet title claims, and procedural motions were properly denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDCPA: Is Wells Fargo a "debt collector"? | Brewster: Wells Fargo acted as a debt collector in foreclosure communications. | Wells Fargo: As creditor/loan servicer, it is not a "debt collector" under FDCPA. | Court: Affirmed for Wells Fargo; no genuine fact dispute that it is a debt collector. |
| RESPA: Did Wells Fargo fail to adequately respond to inquiry about loan ownership? | Brewster: Response about current loan owner was inadequate under 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e). | Wells Fargo: Response satisfied servicer obligations or no triable issue shown. | Court: Affirmed summary judgment; Brewster did not raise a triable issue. |
| Quiet title: Has Brewster shown superior title / lack of default? | Brewster: Seeks to quiet title, asserting defects in foreclosure and ownership. | Wells Fargo: Brewster defaulted; title challenge fails because plaintiff must prevail on own title. | Court: Affirmed; Brewster failed to show he had valid title or lack of default. |
| Procedural motions: Were Brewster's surreply and Rule 59(e) motions properly denied? | Brewster: Sought leave to file surreply and to alter judgment; asserted need for discovery (Rule 56(d) implied). | Wells Fargo: District court properly managed briefing; Brewster didn't show discovery would preclude summary judgment or basis for relief. | Court: Affirmed denials; no abuse of discretion and Rule 56(d) showing insufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Edwards v. Wells Fargo & Co., 606 F.3d 555 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for de novo appeals and FDCPA creditor/debt collector distinction)
- Rowe v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp., 559 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2009) (creditor is not a debt collector under the FDCPA)
- Walker v. Quality Loan Srv. Corp., 308 P.3d 716 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013) (a quiet-title plaintiff must prevail on strength of own title)
- Preminger v. Peake, 552 F.3d 757 (9th Cir. 2008) (district court discretion over surreplies and management of briefing)
- Getz v. Boeing Co., 654 F.3d 852 (9th Cir. 2011) (Rule 56(d) requires showing that proposed discovery would preclude summary judgment)
- Dixon v. Wallowa County, 336 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2003) (standards for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e))
- Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (appellate courts do not consider issues not raised in opening brief)