Jaki Baez v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC
709 F. App'x 979
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Baez sent an RFI to Specialized Loan under Regulation X (12 C.F.R. §1024.36) requesting loan and loss-mitigation information; Specialized Loan acknowledged and produced a packet but omitted certain correspondence (March 18 and May 5, 2015 letters).
- Baez had retained counsel (Korte firm) and paid a flat $400/month fee beginning January 2015 while pursuing a loan modification and defending potential foreclosure.
- Baez sued alleging a RESPA violation for Specialized Loan’s allegedly deficient RFI response; case removed to federal court and proceeded to summary judgment.
- District court granted summary judgment for Specialized Loan, holding Baez failed to show "actual damages" causally resulting from the alleged RESPA violation.
- On appeal, Baez argued actual damages consisted of postage ($4.70), attorney review time (portion of fees), and the deprivation of information that prevented pursuing a §1024.41 loss-mitigation claim; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Baez proved "actual damages" causally caused by the alleged RESPA/Regulation X violation | Postage, attorney review fees, and loss of information (preventing another RESPA claim) are actual damages caused by the deficient response | No causal link: postage and counsel fees incurred irrespective of servicer compliance; no evidence of additional costs or concretely prevented action | Affirmed: Baez failed to show actual damages caused by the noncompliance |
| Recoverability of postage costs as "actual damages" | Postage for sending RFI became damages when servicer gave a deficient response | Postage is incurred before any violation and is not caused by servicer’s failure to comply | Affirmed: postage not recoverable as damages caused by noncompliance |
| Recoverability of attorney fees/time as "actual damages" | Time counsel spent reviewing deficient response is recoverable | Baez paid a flat monthly fee that would have been incurred regardless; no evidence of extra fees or extended retention due to deficient response | Affirmed: no causal link; attorney review portion not recoverable as actual damages |
| Whether loss of information itself constitutes "actual damages" (and was preserved) | The omitted documents deprived Baez of the ability to bring a §1024.41 claim; lack of information is the damage | Argument was not preserved below; no concrete injury or causation shown | Not considered on merits: appellate argument wasn’t fairly presented to the district court and thus not reached |
Key Cases Cited
- Liebman v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 808 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2015) (standard for reviewing summary judgment)
- Turner v. Beneficial Corp., 242 F.3d 1023 (11th Cir. 2001) (causation requirement for statutory "actual damages")
- Lage v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, 839 F.3d 1003 (11th Cir. 2016) (summary of 12 C.F.R. §1024.41 loss-mitigation rules)
- Renfroe v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, 822 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2016) (RESPA damages element and discussion of remedial construction)
- Bates v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 768 F.3d 1126 (11th Cir. 2014) (noting plaintiff must show that lack of information prevented taking an important action)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (concrete-injury requirement for standing in statutory-violation claims)