695 F. App'x 468
11th Cir.2017Background
- Vadis J. Frone, Sr. (pro se) appealed dismissal of claims against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Chase) for breach of contract, FDCPA, TILA, and RESPA following alleged servicing errors and foreclosure-related conduct.
- Frone originally sued with his wife; she died during proceedings and Frone is sole appellant.
- The district court granted Chase’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Frone alleged litigation costs/foreclosure, improper servicer conduct, failed TILA requests, and three Qualified Written Requests (QWRs) under RESPA.
- The district court dismissed: breach of contract for failure to plead recoverable damages; FDCPA because Chase was not a “debt collector” under the statute; TILA for waiver/insufficient pleading; and RESPA because the letters did not meet the QWR specificity requirements.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and affirmed on each pleaded ground.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract: damages from litigation/foreclosure | Frone: litigation costs and foreclosure or improper acceleration caused recoverable damages | Chase: Georgia law precludes litigation costs; Frone failed to plead damages traceable to breach and reinstatement provisions negate alleged harm | Affirmed — plaintiff failed to plead recoverable damages and conclusory allegations insufficient |
| FDCPA: whether Chase is a "debt collector" | Frone: Chase became a debt collector after assignment post-default | Chase: FDCPA excludes assignees who obtained the debt before default; pleadings show Chase serviced loan years before default | Affirmed — Chase not a debt collector under FDCPA based on pleaded facts |
| TILA: failure to respond to motion below / merits | Frone: district court erred by dismissing TILA because he defended it on appeal | Chase: plaintiff waived TILA by not opposing before magistrate and exhibits do not support §1641(f) request | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion and alternate substantive ground supports dismissal |
| RESPA: QWR sufficiency and servicer response | Frone: sent three QWRs; Chase failed to adequately respond | Chase: letters lacked the specificity required to identify servicing errors or allow investigation | Affirmed — letters were vague, not qualifying QWRs, so no RESPA claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Bates v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 768 F.3d 1126 (11th Cir. 2014) (damages from alleged improper acceleration must be traceable and reinstatement rights can negate harm)
- Davidson v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 797 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2015) (FDCPA excludes entities that obtained the debt prior to default)
- Twombly, Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must plead factual content rendering claim plausible)
- Chandler v. Secretary of Fla. Dep’t of Transp., 695 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2012) (courts need not accept legal conclusions in pleadings)
- Rivell v. Private Health Care Sys., Inc., 520 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2008) (Rule 12(b)(6) review requires accepting well-pleaded facts as true)
- Alea London Ltd. v. American Home Services, Inc., 638 F.3d 768 (11th Cir. 2011) (Georgia law generally precludes recovery of litigation expenses absent statute)
- Reese v. Ellis, Painter, Ratterree & Adams, LLP, 678 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2012) (elements for an FDCPA §1692e claim require defendant be a debt collector and conduct relate to debt collection)
- Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 2009) (district court has discretion to decline issues not presented to magistrate)
- Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2014) (appellant must show error as to each independent ground for affirmance to obtain reversal)
- Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165 (11th Cir. 2014) (courts must construe pro se complaints liberally but cannot rewrite deficient pleadings)