Vanamann v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, 2:15-cv-00906

Background

Plaintiff Vanaman filed Chapter 13 in 2009, converted to Chapter 7 in 2012, and received a bankruptcy discharge in May 2013; Bank of America transferred mortgage servicing to Nationstar in December 2013.
Bankruptcy court approved sale of the Slipstream property subject to existing liens, and the mortgage lien continued to encumber the property post-discharge.
Nationstar performed multiple periodic “soft pull” consumer-report inquiries on Vanaman’s mortgage account between Jan 2014 and Aug 2015 for account review/servicing purposes.
Soft pulls returned limited, non-tradeline credit attributes (status, balances, alerts) used to assess loss mitigation, modification, liquidation, fraud prevention, tax/escrow obligations, and other servicing duties.
Vanaman sued under the FCRA, alleging Nationstar lacked a permissible purpose to obtain credit reports after her bankruptcy discharge (15 U.S.C. § 1681b(f)).
Nationstar moved for summary judgment arguing, inter alia, that its post-discharge soft pulls were not willful violations because a reasonable reading of the FCRA permits account-review pulls on accounts encumbered by liens.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Nationstar permissibly obtained consumer reports after Vanaman’s bankruptcy discharge under 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a)(3)	Vanaman: discharge eliminated permissible purpose for account-review pulls because there was no credit transaction or outstanding personal debt	Nationstar: the mortgage lien survived discharge (in rem obligation) and §1681b(a)(3) reasonably authorizes account-review pulls for servicing and collection of lien-secured accounts	Court: Held Nationstar’s interpretation reasonable; lien constitutes continuing basis for account review, so pulls were permissible
Whether Nationstar’s conduct was a "willful" violation under the FCRA (entitling Vanaman to statutory damages)	Vanaman: post-discharge pulls were unlawful and therefore willful	Nationstar: its interpretation was objectively reasonable and courts/FTC guidance do not clearly establish prohibition	Court: Held no willfulness; reasonable difference in statutory interpretation forecloses finding of reckless or knowing violation
Whether post-discharge account status (open/closed) limits FCRA permissible purposes	Vanaman: closed/discharged account cannot justify review/collection pulls	Nationstar: FCRA does not distinguish open vs closed accounts; courts have allowed account-review for closed accounts	Court: Held statute permits access for review/collection regardless of open/closed status
Whether summary judgment proper given the record	Vanaman: factual disputes regarding purpose and willfulness preclude summary judgment	Nationstar: record shows legitimate servicing purposes and supporting testimony; Vanaman points to no controlling authority showing objective unreasonableness	Court: Granted summary judgment for Nationstar; no genuine issue of material fact on willfulness

Key Cases Cited

Safeco Ins. Co. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (defines willful FCRA violations and requires objective unreasonableness for reckless violations)
Syed v. M-I, LLC, 846 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2017) (discusses FCRA risk-of-violation analysis and qualified-immunity-style analogy)
Levine v. World Fin. Network Nat. Bank, 554 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2009) (upholds permissibility of account-review consumer reports for closed accounts)
Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 U.S. 78 (Sup. Ct. 1991) (bankruptcy discharge extinguishes in personam claims but leaves in rem liens intact)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (standard for resisting summary judgment; inferences must favor nonmoving party)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (standard on genuine issue of material fact for summary judgment)