Sara Bohannon v. PHH Mortgage Corporation
665 F. App'x 760
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Bohannon obtained a residential mortgage that came to be owned by Fannie Mae with PHH as servicer.
- PHH sent a foreclosure notice stating PHH had "full authority" to negotiate, amend, or modify the mortgage; Bohannon alleges PHH in fact had only limited authority and Fannie Mae retained full authority.
- PHH conducted a non-judicial foreclosure sale, purchased the property, conveyed it to Fannie Mae, and Bohannon was evicted.
- Bohannon sued in Georgia state court for wrongful foreclosure; defendants removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
- The district court dismissed all claims on three alternative grounds: collateral estoppel, substantial compliance with O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162.2, and failure to plead causation (that any defective notice caused damages).
- On appeal Bohannon challenged collateral estoppel and substantial compliance but did not contest the district court’s causation ruling; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed for that unchallenged independent ground.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether collateral estoppel barred Bohannon's claims | Bohannon: prior litigation did not preclude her wrongful-foreclosure claims here | PHH/Fannie Mae: issue of PHH's authority was already litigated and preclusive | Court affirmed collateral estoppel ruling (challenged on appeal) |
| Whether PHH's notice complied with O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162.2 | Bohannon: notice was false because PHH lacked "full authority"—statutory violation | Defendants: notice substantially complied with statute | Court held substantial compliance (also argued on appeal) |
| Whether Bohannon adequately alleged causation (that defective notice caused damages) | Bohannon: alleged wrongful foreclosure and damages from eviction | Defendants: complaint fails to plead that any alleged notice defect caused her damages; she was admittedly in default | Court held plaintiff failed to plead causation; Bohannon did not challenge this ground on appeal, so judgment affirmed |
| Whether the federal court properly exercised jurisdiction / removal timeliness | Bohannon: removal was untimely; remand required | Defendants: diversity jurisdiction present and removal proper | Court found diversity jurisdiction satisfied; removal timeliness waived/ not properly raised |
Key Cases Cited
- Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2014) (appellant must challenge every independent ground for judgment on appeal)
- Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2012) (at motion-to-dismiss stage, courts accept well-pleaded allegations as true)
- United States v. Kapordelis, 569 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (issues not properly presented are waived on appeal)
- Leonard v. Enter. Rent a Car, 279 F.3d 967 (11th Cir. 2002) (value of injunctive/declaratory relief counts toward amount in controversy)
- Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2004) (arguments raised first in reply brief are ordinarily not considered)
- F.D.I.C. v. Verex Assur., Inc., 3 F.3d 391 (11th Cir. 1993) (appellate courts generally will not consider issues not raised in the district court)