Tamara Frazier v. Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc.
72 F.4th 769
| 7th Cir. | 2023Background
- Tamara Frazier short-sold her mortgaged home; closing/settlement date was January 14, 2016. Post-settlement credit reporting later showed delinquencies after that date.
- In 2019–2020 Frazier disputed her mortgage reporting to Equifax; Equifax sent Dovenmuehle ACDV forms and Dovenmuehle returned amended/verified data.
- Dovenmuehle’s ACDV responses changed Account Status to closed, Balance and Amount Past Due to $0, Date Closed/Date of Account Information to the short-sale dates, Account History to dashes ("no reporting" after Dec. 2015), and Pay Rate to code “3” (90 days delinquent).
- Frazier alleged the Pay Rate and Account History codes were inaccurate or misleading (as reflected in Equifax credit reports) and that this caused a mortgage denial in August 2020.
- District court granted summary judgment for Dovenmuehle, denied some discovery/supplement motions; Frazier appealed the summary judgment and discovery rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper legal standard for accuracy under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s‑2(b) | Accuracy should be judged by the credit report produced from furnisher data | Accuracy must be judged by the information the furnisher actually provided in its ACDV response | Court adopted the two‑part test: furnisher data must be patently incorrect or materially misleading (including by omission); accuracy is assessed by the furnisher's ACDV response in context |
| Whether Dovenmuehle’s ACDV responses were inaccurate (Pay Rate = “3” and Account History dashes) | The Pay Rate “3” and account history produced by Equifax show current delinquencies and are therefore inaccurate/misleading | The ACDV responses, read in context (closed account, $0 balance/amount past due, date closed = 1/14/2016, special code AU, no reporting after 12/2015), accurately reflect a closed, historically delinquent account | No genuine dispute: the Pay Rate and Account History were not patently incorrect or materially misleading as a matter of law; summary judgment for Dovenmuehle affirmed |
| Denial/limitation of discovery and denial of supplemental briefing | Frazier sought depositions (Equifax, mortgage broker) and to supplement with Equifax deposition to show interpretation and damages | Dovenmuehle argued the requested discovery was unnecessary or irrelevant to the dispositive accuracy question | No reversible abuse: Equifax was later deposed in a separate suit (mooting that appeal), and any error in limiting discovery/supplemental briefing was harmless given summary judgment outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2009) (adopts “materially misleading” standard for accuracy under FCRA authority relied on here)
- Bibbs v. Trans Union LLC, 43 F.4th 331 (3d Cir. 2022) (closed‑account context can prevent a past‑due code from being materially misleading)
- Woods v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 27 F.4th 544 (7th Cir. 2022) (reasonableness of furnisher investigation assessed objectively based on ACDV content)
- Seamans v. Temple Univ., 744 F.3d 853 (3d Cir. 2014) (recognizes the two threshold requirements for furnisher liability under § 1681s‑2(b))