Joan Haynes v. McCalla Raymer, LLC
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12025
| 11th Cir. | 2015Background
- Joan and Troy Haynes sued McCalla Raymer, BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (BANA), and MERS after BANA foreclosed their home, alleging wrongful foreclosure, fraud, civil conspiracy, and violations of RESPA, the FDCPA, and RICO.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; the magistrate judge issued an R&R recommending against the Haynes’ claims; the district court adopted the R&R and granted summary judgment to defendants.
- Haynes filed objections to the R&R and later sought leave to file a third amended complaint to add Fannie Mae and a breach‑of‑contract claim after discovery closed.
- The Haynes challenged the assignment of the security deed (alleging improper attestation and forgery) and argued the foreclosure notice misidentified the entity with authority to modify the loan.
- The district court denied leave to amend as untimely/unduly delayed, treated the FDCPA issue as abandoned on appeal, and held the Haynes lacked standing to attack the assignment and could not show causation from any § 44‑14‑162.2 notice deficiency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court failed to consider Haynes’ objections to the R&R | District court did not consider or adopt their objections | District court reviewed record and rejected objections (or any failure was harmless) | Court assumes objections were considered; in any event any failure was harmless; no reversal |
| Whether denial of leave to file third amended complaint was an abuse of discretion | Haynes needed to add Fannie Mae and breach‑of‑contract claims learned in discovery | Amendment was unduly delayed, discovery closed, summary‑judgment motions filed; information available earlier | Denial affirmed: undue delay/futility; district court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether summary judgment on FDCPA claim was erroneous | FDCPA claim asserted below (details incorporated by reference) | Haynes failed to present FDCPA argument in opening brief on appeal | FDCPA claim deemed abandoned on appeal; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether foreclosure was wrongful (assignment attestation/forgery; notice of modifier authority) | Assignment defective (patent attestation defect and forged signatures) and notice misidentified entity with modification authority causing foreclosure | Haynes lack standing to challenge assignment; patent attestation defect doesn't void assignment as to parties; notice substantially complied and no causal injury shown | Summary judgment affirmed: no standing to contest assignment; notice compliance/substantial compliance or no causal link to foreclosure |
Key Cases Cited
- Skop v. City of Atlanta, 485 F.3d 1130 (11th Cir.) (summary judgment review standard)
- SFM Holdings, Ltd. v. Banc of Am. Sec., LLC, 600 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir.) (abuse of discretion standard for denial of leave to amend)
- Maynard v. Bd. of Regents, 342 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir.) (factors supporting denial of leave to amend)
- Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Eng’g, Inc., 731 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir.) (undue delay as basis to deny amendment)
- Montgomery v. Bank of Am., 740 S.E.2d 434 (Ga. Ct. App.) (borrower lacks standing to challenge assignment between MERS and bank)
- Brock v. Yale Mortg. Corp., 700 S.E.2d 583 (Ga.) (forged deed is a nullity)
- Leeds Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. Sears Mortg. Corp., 477 S.E.2d 565 (Ga.) (recording/filing gives constructive notice; recording statutes protect third parties)
- You v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 743 S.E.2d 428 (Ga.) (limited scope of consumer protections in foreclosure/recording context)
- TKW Partners, LLC v. Archer Capital Fund, L.P., 691 S.E.2d 300 (Ga. Ct. App.) (substantial compliance with notice of modifier‑authority requirement)
- Heritage Creek Dev. Corp. v. Colonial Bank, 601 S.E.2d 842 (Ga. Ct. App.) (elements for wrongful foreclosure claim including causation and damages)