Jean A. Saint Vil v. Perimeter Mortgage Funding Corporation, 630 F. App'x 928

Jean and Guirlande Saint Vil filed a pro se suit challenging foreclosure-related conduct and seeking relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and a declaratory judgment that Georgia’s foreclosure statute is unconstitutionally vague.
District court dismissed the FDCPA claims for failure to state a claim and denied as moot the declaratory-judgment motions. Plaintiffs appealed only service-successful defendants (Wells Fargo and SSH).
Plaintiffs alleged Wells Fargo became loan servicer in 2006, borrowers made payments through 2013, and the loan was not in default when Wells Fargo obtained servicing.
Plaintiffs alleged SSH (a law firm) published two statutorily required Notices of Sale Under Power announcing foreclosure; they attached those notices to the complaint.
Plaintiffs argued both defendants acted as "debt collectors" under 15 U.S.C. § 1692 and that Georgia’s foreclosure statute is unconstitutionally vague, implicating federal due-process rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wells Fargo is a "debt collector" under the FDCPA	Wells Fargo acted as a debt collector when foreclosing	Wells Fargo was collecting its own debt/servicing a loan not in default when obtained, so FDCPA doesn't apply	Not a debt-collector action under FDCPA; claim dismissed
Whether SSH’s foreclosure notices made it a "debt collector" under the FDCPA	SSH’s Notices of Sale and self-identification as a debt collector show FDCPA coverage	Notices were statutorily required foreclosure notices that did not demand payment or offer collection remedies	Notices alone insufficient; FDCPA claim against SSH dismissed
Whether the district court had federal-question jurisdiction over the vagueness/declaratory-judgment claim	The vagueness challenge raises a Fourteenth Amendment due-process federal question	District court held it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the declaratory-judgment claim	Court of Appeals: federal-question jurisdiction exists; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was erroneous
Whether dismissal of FDCPA claims justified denial as moot of the declaratory-judgment motion	Plaintiffs' declaratory-judgment claim was dependent on FDCPA supplemental jurisdiction	Defendants and district court treated declaratory claim as dependent and moot after FDCPA dismissal	Declaratory-judgment claim is, at least in part, an independent federal claim; denial reversed and remanded

Reese v. Ellis, Painter, Ratterree & Adams, LLP, 678 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir.) (standards for pleading FDCPA claims and defining debt collector)
Bourff v. Rubin Lublin, LLC, 674 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir.) (law-firm foreclosure communications can constitute debt collection in some circumstances)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for complaints)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (complaint must plead factual content to state a claim)
United States v. Contreras, 739 F.3d 592 (11th Cir.) (names/labels are not dispositive of statutory definitions)
Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399 (U.S. 1966) (invalidating an imprecise state statute under due-process principles)
Household Bank v. JFS Group, 320 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir.) (Declaratory Judgment Act claims require an underlying basis for federal jurisdiction)
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (U.S. 1962) (standard for when a federal-question claim is so insubstantial as to deprive the court of jurisdiction)