372 F. Supp. 3d 609
E.D. Ill.2019Background
- Saccameno obtained a mortgage in 2002, filed Chapter 13 in 2009, completed plan payments and received a discharge in June 2013; Ocwen was her loan servicer.
- After discharge, Ocwen miscoded the discharge as a dismissal and advanced the post‑petition due date; its records showed she had made only 40 of 42 post‑petition payments.
- Ocwen sent collection letters and made oral collection statements asserting delinquency; it repeatedly rejected or returned Saccameno’s mortgage payments for ~17 months despite documentation proving payment.
- Saccameno engaged counsel, sent QWRs/letters (July 2013, March/April 2014) with documentary proof; Ocwen’s written responses were boilerplate or unresponsive and did not correct the account.
- Plaintiff sued (breach of contract, FDCPA, ICFA, RESPA). After a 2018 jury trial she prevailed: $582,000 compensatory (total) and $3,000,000 punitive. Ocwen moved for JMOL, a new trial, and to amend the judgment; the court denied all motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| JMOL on breach of contract: whether record supports breach and damages | Ocwen breached mortgage by rejecting/applying payments improperly; plaintiff suffered pecuniary harm (lost job, medication costs). | Ocwen: no identified contractual breach and no actual damages. | Denied — evidence supported contractual breach (returned payments) and pecuniary damages. |
| JMOL on ICFA (deceptive/unfair practices) | Ocwen’s written and oral communications were deceptive/unfair; caused actual pecuniary and emotional harm; consent orders show notice/systemic problems. | Ocwen: disclaimers in letters and human error show no deception or intent; consent orders irrelevant/prejudicial. | Denied — record supports deceptive and unfair practice theories and actual damages. |
| JMOL on RESPA (QWR responses) | Ocwen failed to conduct adequate investigations or provide meaningful, case‑specific explanations to QWRs; resulted in actual damages (economic + emotional). | Ocwen: responses were reasonable; plaintiff failed to show RESPA damages/causation. | Denied — jury could find violations for July 2013 and March 2014 QWRs and resulting damages. |
| Punitive damages excessive / corporate complicity | Plaintiff: evidence of repeated misconduct, regulatory history, and management awareness supports punitive award. | Ocwen: conduct was isolated human error; no managerial authorization/ratification to permit punitive damages; award violates due process. | Denied — jury could infer maliciousness or deliberate indifference and corporate ratification; $3M punitive upheld under Gore factors (court aggregated compensatory awards). |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. City of Chicago, 900 F.3d 838 (7th Cir. 2018) (standard for JMOL review)
- Robinson v. Perales, 894 F.3d 818 (7th Cir. 2018) (evidentiary view and inferences on JMOL)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (credibility and § 50 standard principles)
- Catalan v. GMAC Mortg. Corp., 629 F.3d 676 (7th Cir. 2011) (servicer’s refusal to apply payments can breach mortgage servicing obligations)
- Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 673 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2012) (elements of ICFA and intent requirement)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2003) (Due Process guideposts for punitive damages review)
- BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (U.S. 1996) (punitive damages review factors)
- Mathias v. Accor Econ. Lodging, Inc., 347 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2003) (discussion of punitive/compensatory ratio and policing a range)