Sandra Carter v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc.
680 F. App'x 890
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Sandra Carter (pro se) sued after HSBC foreclosed her home in January 2014, alleging violations of the security deed’s pre-acceleration notice requirement (¶22).
- HSBC moved for summary judgment, producing evidence it mailed a pre-acceleration notice by first-class mail on June 16, 2013; the deed’s ¶15 states notice is "deemed given" when mailed.
- Carter submitted a personal declaration saying she never received the notice and argued she lacked adequate discovery before summary judgment.
- The district court adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation, found HSBC had complied as a matter of law (mailing = notice), and held Carter failed to show damages causally tied to any lack of notice.
- Carter appealed, arguing inadequate discovery, disputing mailing/notice, and raising a new allegation (advice to default for loan modification) not presented below.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed: no abuse of discretion on discovery, mailing satisfied the deed’s notice requirement, and Carter offered no evidence she could have cured the default or was injured by lack of notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of discovery before summary judgment | Carter: needed more time/discovery to rebut HSBC’s mailing evidence | HSBC: Carter had time and did not propound discovery or specify what discovery would show | No abuse of discretion; Carter offered only vague assertions and failed to show how more discovery would create a genuine issue of fact |
| Whether mailing by first-class mail satisfied deed’s pre-acceleration notice requirement | Carter: she did not receive notice, so requirement not met | HSBC: ¶15 of the deed deems notice given when mailed; it mailed the notice | Mailing satisfied deed requirement as a matter of law; receipt not required where deed so provides |
| Causation/damages from alleged lack of notice | Carter: foreclosure harmed her and lack of notice caused injury | HSBC: Carter admitted default and presented no evidence she could have cured default if notified | Held for HSBC: Carter failed to show a causal link or that additional notice would have prevented foreclosure |
| New allegation raised on appeal (advice to default for modification) | Carter: newly alleges bank advised her to default to obtain modification | HSBC: allegation not in amended complaint and was not litigated below | Court declined to consider new claim on appeal; Carter did not move to amend below |
Key Cases Cited
- Snook v. Trust Co. of Ga. Bank of Savannah, 859 F.2d 865 (11th Cir. 1988) (summary judgment should not issue before adequate discovery)
- Wallace v. Brownell Pontiac-GMC Co., Inc., 703 F.2d 525 (11th Cir. 1983) (nonmovant must specifically show how additional discovery would rebut summary-judgment showing)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for granting summary judgment; no trial unless sufficient evidence favors nonmovant)
- Quigg v. Thomas Cty. Sch. Dist., 814 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2016) (review standard for summary judgment and drawing inferences for nonmovant)
- Bates v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 768 F.3d 1126 (11th Cir. 2014) (plaintiff must show causal connection between breach and injury in breach-of-contract foreclosure claims)
- Calhoun First Nat’l Bank v. Dickens, 443 S.E.2d 837 (Ga. 1994) (wrongful foreclosure requires causal link between lack of notice and injury)
- Austin v. Bank of Am., N.A., 743 S.E.2d 399 (Ga. 2013) (interpretation of contractual notice provisions is a question of law)
- Cordoba v. Dillard’s, Inc., 419 F.3d 1169 (11th Cir. 2005) (speculation does not create a genuine issue of material fact)