886 F.3d 713
8th Cir.2018Background
- Wirtz's mortgage servicing transferred to Specialized in June 2013; Specialized received a partial payment history beginning June 2011 showing delinquencies.
- Wirtz disputed that his loan was delinquent pre-June 2011 and, after initial phone calls and a Minnesota AG inquiry, sent multiple qualified written requests (QWRs) seeking the full payment history "from origination to present" and explanations for the alleged delinquencies.
- Specialized responded by referencing only the partial payment history it received from Chase and asked Wirtz to produce front-and-back cancelled checks to dispute February 2012 and 2013 misses.
- Wirtz later supplied his full payment history and bank records; Specialized continued to rely on records beginning in November 2011 and did not obtain or review the pre-2011 history from Chase.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Wirtz, finding Specialized violated RESPA and the Minnesota Servicer Licensing Act, and awarded actual damages ($80), statutory RESPA damages ($2,000), Minnesota damages, attorney fees, and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2605(e) requires a reasonably thorough investigation | Wirtz: Specialized failed to investigate pre-2011 history as requested, violating RESPA | Specialized: statute imposes only procedural duties; no substantive obligation to investigate thoroughly | Court: §2605(e) requires a reasonably thorough investigation; Specialized failed to obtain/review pre-2011 records and so violated §2605(e) |
| Whether Specialized had to provide information not in its possession | Wirtz: Servicer must provide requested information or explain why unavailable; Specialized could obtain earlier records from Chase | Specialized: Pre-2011 history was unavailable because Chase did not provide it | Held: Information was not ‘‘unavailable’’ if obtainable by reasonable investigation; Specialized should have requested it from Chase |
| Whether Wirtz proved actual damages under RESPA | Wirtz: Incurred $80 obtaining bank records and other harms from servicer's failures | Specialized: Any expenses were unrelated or not caused by failure to provide pre-2011 history; actual damages are required and causation is essential | Held: Wirtz failed to show actual damages "as a result of" the RESPA violation; $80 expense related to separate 2012–13 payment dispute, not pre-2011 issue |
| Whether statutory "additional" damages or "pattern or practice" shown under §2605(f)(1)(B) | Wirtz: Entitled to up to $2,000 statutory damages; existence of repeated letters shows pattern | Specialized: No pattern or practice; no actual damages so statutory damages inapplicable | Held: Statutory damages are "additional" to actual damages; without actual damages plaintiff cannot recover them; insufficient evidence of servicer-wide pattern or practice |
Key Cases Cited
- UnitedHealth Grp. Inc. v. Exec. Risk Specialty Ins. Co., 870 F.3d 856 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Johnson v. MBNA Am. Bank, N.A., 357 F.3d 426 (4th Cir. 2004) (RESPA ‘‘investigation’’ cannot be superficial)
- Asgrow Seed Co. v. Winterboer, 513 U.S. 179 (1995) (use statutory purpose to interpret text)
- Hintz v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 686 F.3d 505 (8th Cir. 2012) (actual damages are an essential element of a RESPA §2605 claim)
- Renfroe v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 822 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2016) (causation and requirement of actual damages under RESPA)
- Toone v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 716 F.3d 516 (10th Cir. 2013) (actual damages requirement in RESPA cases)
- Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1977) (meaning of "pattern or practice")
- Baker v. G.C. Servs. Corp., 677 F.2d 775 (9th Cir. 1982) (discussed but distinguished on statutory-text grounds)