Oscar Navia v. Nation Star Mortgage LLC
708 F. App'x 629
| 11th Cir. | 2018Background
- Plaintiff Oscar Navia, pro se, sued Nationstar Mortgage alleging violations of RESPA and Regulation X related to loss mitigation (loan modification) requests.
- Navia filed an amended complaint; the district court dismissed it with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
- Navia appealed the dismissal to the Eleventh Circuit.
- Regulation X (12 C.F.R. §1024.41) requires servicers to evaluate a complete loss mitigation application and provide written notice if submitted more than 37 days before a foreclosure sale.
- A duplicative-requests rule in §1024.41(i) (the version in effect when Navia submitted his later requests) limits servicer obligations to a single complete loss mitigation application per borrower unless the servicer had not previously complied.
- Nationstar produced evidence (attached to its motion) showing it had previously reviewed, approved, and entered into a loan modification with Navia on May 22, 2014.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nationstar violated RESPA/Regulation X by failing to comply with loss mitigation procedures for a subsequent application | Navia: Nationstar failed to follow Regulation X for his later loan modification requests | Nationstar: §1024.41(i) allows servicer to treat later requests as duplicative if it had previously complied for an earlier complete application; it previously approved a modification | Court: Dismissal affirmed — because Nationstar had complied for a prior application, it owed no further §1024.41 duties for the subsequent application |
| Whether the complaint stated a plausible claim under Rule 12(b)(6) | Navia: Facts alleged suffice to show a violation | Nationstar: Documents and undisputed prior modification defeat plausibility; dismissal appropriate | Court: Reviewed de novo and found the complaint did not plausibly state a claim; dismissal proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Fin. Sec. Assurance, Inc. v. Stephens, Inc., 500 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2007) (courts may consider documents central to claims and attached to motions to dismiss)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994) (apply law in effect at time of conduct when assessing legal effect)