Gayle Helman v. Bank of America
685 F. App'x 723
11th Cir.2017Background
- Helman obtained a mortgage and a home equity line from Bank of America (BANA) in 2004 and later received a Chapter 7 discharge in 2009.
- After discharge, BANA continued to send monthly statements for both loans.
- Helman sued in federal district court asserting an FDCPA claim and several Florida state-law claims (FCCPA, unfair/deceptive trade practices, conversion, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation).
- District court dismissed the FDCPA claim (finding BANA not a “debt collector”), referred any bankruptcy-injunction issues to the bankruptcy court, and later dismissed the state-law claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
- On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed: BANA is a creditor (not a debt collector) under the FDCPA, and a least-sophisticated-consumer would not be misled by BANA’s post-discharge monthly statements; thus state-law claims requiring reliance or deception also fail.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BANA is a “debt collector” under the FDCPA | Helman: BANA’s post-discharge collection activity subjects it to the FDCPA | BANA: Originator/creditor exception applies; it originated the loans and is a creditor | BANA is a creditor and not a debt collector; FDCPA claim dismissed |
| Whether monthly statements violated the FCCPA by implying personal liability | Helman: Statements implied a right to collect personally despite discharge | BANA: Statements expressly informed debt was discharged and only in-rem remedies (mortgage) remained | A least-sophisticated consumer would not be misled; FCCPA claim dismissed |
| Whether negligent misrepresentation requires actionable reliance | Helman: Relied on statements; claim viable | BANA: Plaintiff knew of discharge; reliance unjustified and unreasonable | Reliance was unreasonable (discharge made falsity obvious); claim dismissed |
| Whether fraudulent inducement claim survives without justifiable reliance | Helman: Fraudulent inducement claim requires only reliance | BANA: No actionable misrepresentation; plaintiff could not reasonably rely | Plaintiff could not reasonably rely; claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Starship Enters. of Atlanta, Inc. v. Coweta County, 708 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals)
- Eke v. FirstBank Fla., 779 F. Supp. 2d 1354 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (elements of an FDCPA claim)
- Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 758 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2014) (FDCPA applies to professional debt collectors, not creditors)
- LeBlanc v. Unifund CCR Partners, 601 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2010) (least-sophisticated-consumer standard)
- Caceres v. McCalla Raymer, LLC, 755 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2014) (implied threats in communications can violate consumer-protection statutes)
- Gilchrist Timber Co. v. ITT Rayonier, Inc., 127 F.3d 1390 (11th Cir. 1997) (elements of negligent misrepresentation require reliance)
- Butler v. Yusem, 44 So. 3d 102 (Fla. 2010) (fraudulent inducement under Florida law requires reliance)