Ginette Saint Cilien v. U.S. Bank National Association
687 F. App'x 789
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Ginette St. Cilien (pro se) sued U.S. Bank and law firm Pendergast & Associates to challenge foreclosure and related communications concerning her mortgage and loss-mitigation efforts.
- The district court dismissed her amended complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim; St. Cilien appealed.
- Major allegations: invalid assignment of the mortgage from MERS to U.S. Bank; failures by U.S. Bank in loss-mitigation notices/communications; improper motion to lift the bankruptcy automatic stay; threats to foreclose despite alleged lack of authority.
- Plaintiff asserted causes of action under: declaratory judgment (challenging assignment), RESPA (notification and dual-tracking), TILA (failure to provide statements), FDCPA, Georgia Fair Business Practices Act (GFBPA), and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo, applying Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standards and construed the pro se complaint liberally.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge assignment / declaratory relief | Assignment from MERS to U.S. Bank was invalid; plaintiff may challenge it | Borrower was not a party to the assignment contract and lacks standing | Dismissed: plaintiff lacks standing to attack assignment |
| RESPA violations (12 C.F.R. §§1024.39, .40, .41(g)) | U.S. Bank failed to give required notices and dual-tracked during loss-mitigation | Bank argues insufficient facts on timing/method of notices and no complete loss-mitigation timeline | Dismissed: complaint lacks factual detail to state plausible RESPA violations |
| TILA (failure to provide monthly statements) | Bank failed to provide required monthly statements | Bank exempt from TILA notice duties because plaintiff was in bankruptcy | Dismissed: TILA claim is barred by bankruptcy exemption |
| FDCPA / GFBPA / Negligence | Pendergast falsely stated bank was holder; bank threatened improper foreclosure; defendants violated FDCPA and GFBPA; negligent infliction of emotional distress | Plaintiff lacks standing to contest assignment; bank is not plausibly a "debt collector"; threats were lawful; GFBPA claims derivative of FDCPA; no duty-breach for negligence | Dismissed: no plausible FDCPA claim, GFBPA fails (derivative), negligence fails (no underlying breach) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. White, 321 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2003) (standard for de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (U.S. 2007) (complaint must plead factual content giving plausible entitlement to relief)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (factual plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Breus v. McGriff, 413 S.E.2d 538 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991) (borrower lacks standing to challenge assignments to which she was not a party)
- Reese v. Ellis, Painter, Ratterree & Adams LLP, 678 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2012) (elements for FDCPA claim: defendant must be a debt collector and conduct must be debt-collection related)
- Davidson v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 797 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2015) (definition and scope of "debt collector" under FDCPA)
- You v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 743 S.E.2d 428 (Ga. 2013) (assignee of security deed has foreclosure authority under Georgia law)