Regions Bank v. Legal Outsource PA, 936 F.3d 1184

Regions Bank made two related loans: a line of credit to Legal Outsource PA (owned by Charles Phoenix) and a $1.7M loan to Periwinkle Partners, LLC (owned by Lisa Phoenix). Charles, Lisa, and Legal Outsource guaranteed the Periwinkle loan; Charles guaranteed the Outsource loan.
The loans were declared in default after obligors failed to provide financials and to pay taxes; Regions accelerated both loans, sued to enforce notes and foreclose, and obtained summary judgment on its claims.
Defendants (the Phoenixes, Legal Outsource, Periwinkle) asserted multiple counterclaims, including ECOA claims alleging marital-status discrimination because Regions required the spouses/firm to guarantee the Periwinkle loan.
The district court granted summary judgment for Regions, concluding Lisa Phoenix lacked ECOA standing because she was a guarantor, not an “applicant,” and later entered an amended judgment that mistakenly listed Lisa and Periwinkle as liable on the Outsource loan.
On appeal the Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether a guarantor qualifies as an “applicant” under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and whether the amended judgment must be corrected.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a guarantor is an “applicant” under the ECOA	Regulation B (12 C.F.R. §202.2(e)) includes guarantors; CFPB/Fed Reserve interpretation is reasonable and merits Chevron deference, so guarantors have standing	The statutory definition (15 U.S.C. §1691a(b)) is unambiguous: an “applicant” is one who requests credit for themself; a guarantor assumes contingent liability and does not “apply” for credit	A guarantor is not an “applicant”; the statutory text unambiguously excludes guarantors, so no Chevron deference to Regulation B; affirm summary judgment for Regions on ECOA claims
Whether the amended judgment incorrectly assessed liability for the Outsource loan	(Appellants) challenged district rulings but did not preserve alternate ECOA claims on appeal	Regions: only Charles and Legal Outsource were defendants on the Outsource-loan counts; Lisa and Periwinkle were not liable on that loan	Court remanded to correct the amended judgment so only Charles Phoenix and Legal Outsource are liable for the Outsource loan

Hawkins v. Cmty. Bank of Raymore, 761 F.3d 937 (8th Cir. 2014) (held a guarantor is not an “applicant” under the ECOA)
Moran Foods, Inc. v. Mid-Atl. Mkt. Dev. Co., 476 F.3d 436 (7th Cir. 2007) (opined that “applicant” unambiguously excludes guarantors)
RL BB Acquisition, LLC v. Bridgemill Commons Dev. Grp., 754 F.3d 380 (6th Cir. 2014) (found the statutory term ambiguous and applied Chevron deference to Regulation B)
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (Sup. Ct. 1984) (framework for judicial deference to agency statutory interpretations)
Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2014) (briefing/abandonment principles referenced by the court)