Scott J. Moore v. Seterus, Inc.
711 F. App'x 575
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2007 the Moores obtained a 30‑year mortgage from SunTrust; the mortgage authorized collection of late charges, attorney fees, inspection and valuation fees and described payment application rules.
- The Moores fell behind in 2011, filed Chapter 13 in December 2011, made several post‑petition payments in 2012, and SunTrust filed a Proof of Claim in June 2012 identifying fees and arrearages; the claim was paid through the plan in October 2012.
- The loan was transferred to Fannie Mae with Seterus as servicer in June 2012; some payments and the Proof of Claim proceeds were applied to interest/arrears rather than to certain fees, leaving fees outstanding.
- By April 2015 the Moores were seven payments past due; Seterus sent a demand letter seeking over $14,000 (payments, late charges, inspection, legal, publication, and title fees) and threatened possible acceleration/foreclosure if not cured.
- The Moores paid the demand amount in May 2015; Seterus applied the funds to past due and upcoming periodic payments and late charges but not to legal/inspection/publication/title fees, which remained unpaid.
- The Moores sent a Qualified Written Request/Notice of Servicing Errors (QWR/NSE) in June 2015 disputing application of payments and the demand amount; Seterus investigated, issued an escrow refund, and concluded in August 2015 that the demand was correct; the Moores sued in December 2015 alleging FDCPA, RESPA, and Alabama breach of contract violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDCPA — collecting unauthorized/incorrect debt (§1692f/e) | Moores: demand letter included fees already paid (double‑charged) and mischaracterized amount due | Appellees: Proof of Claim proceeds were applied to arrears/interest, not to listed fees; fees remained due; demand amount was accurate | Court: For Seterus/Fannie Mae — no FDCPA violation; fees were still owed and demand was not misleading |
| FDCPA — false representation of amount or legal status (§1692e(2)(A)) | Moores: demand did not actually "cure the default" and could lead to foreclosure despite payment because fees remained unpaid | Appellees: Amount was due at time of letter; payments applied properly; Seterus does not foreclose on unpaid fees alone | Court: No violation—demand amount was the amount due and letter did not misleadingly threaten immediate sale without required notices |
| FDCPA — threat to take action not permitted or intended (§1692e(5)) | Moores: letter threatened foreclosure "without further notice," contrary to mortgage requirement for written notice when power of sale is invoked | Appellees: Letter expressly conditioned foreclosure on applicable law and did not purport to bypass contractual/state notice requirements | Court: No violation—the letter, read as a whole, did not threaten foreclosure contrary to contract or law |
| RESPA — unreasonable investigation of QWR/NSE | Moores: Seterus failed to uncover double‑payment of fees and misapplied SunTrust payments during its investigation | Appellees: Investigation was reasonable; records show Proof of Claim proceeds and post‑petition payments were applied to arrears/interest as claimed | Court: No RESPA violation—no genuine dispute that Seterus’s investigation was reasonable |
| Breach of contract (Alabama) | Moores: Appellees breached mortgage by attempting to collect debts the Moores already paid | Appellees: Record shows debts were not paid; amounts remained due | Court: No breach—undisputed record shows no improper double collection |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat’l Parks Conservation Ass’n v. Norton, 324 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2003) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Brooks v. Cnty. Comm’n of Jefferson Cnty., Ala., 446 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2006) (summary judgment and evidence standard)
- Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 758 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2014) (least‑sophisticated consumer standard under FDCPA)
- LeBlanc v. Unifund CCR Partners, 601 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2010) (explanation of least‑sophisticated consumer and reasonableness test)
- Renfroe v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 822 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2016) (RESPA servicer obligations in response to QWR/NSE)
- Chapman v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir. 2000) (insufficiency of mere contradictory testimony at summary judgment)
- Shaffer v. Regions Fin. Corp., 29 So.3d 872 (Ala. 2009) (elements of an Alabama breach‑of‑contract claim)