Trent v. Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. , 288 F. App'x 571 ( 2008 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
July 11, 2008
No. 07-13911 THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 06-00374-CV-J-32-HTS
SANDY S. TRENT, et al,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiffs,
SARALEY INEZ MEISMER,
ANDREW TURNER,
RICO TAYLOR,
FRANCES PULLINS,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
a.k.a. MERS,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(July 11, 2008)
Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, PRYOR, Circuit Judge, and JOHNSON,*
District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Saraley Inez Meismer, Andrew Turner, Rico Taylor, and Frances Pullins,
debtors who defaulted on their mortgage debts, appeal the dismissal of their
putative class action for failure to state a claim. The debtors argue that Mortgage
Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., violated the Florida Consumer Collection
Practices Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 559.55–559.785, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 501.201–501.23. The debtors complain that
Mortgage Systems sent them deceptive notices, which described Mortgage
Systems as a “creditor,” and Mortgage Systems filed foreclosure actions against
the debtors’ property without legal authority. We affirm.
We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim.
Fin. Sec. Assurance, Inc. v. Stephens, Inc., 500 F.3d 1276, 1282 (11th Cir. 2007)
*
Honorable Inge P. Johnson, United States District Judge for the Northern District of
Alabama, sitting by designation.
2
(citing Roberts v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 146 F.3d 1305, 1307 (11th Cir. 1998)).
We accept the allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff. Id.The debtors argue that Mortgage Systems sent them deceptive notices that
violated section 559.72(9) of the Collection Act. The debtors argue that the notice
misidentified Mortgage Systems as their “creditor.” The debtors also contend that
the district court should have applied the least-sophisticated-debtor standard to
determine whether these notices were misleading. These arguments fail.
Under the mortgage contracts, Mortgage Systems has the legal right to
foreclose on the debtors’ property. Mortgage Systems is the mortgagee. The
notices sent to the debtors restated information from the mortgage contracts and
were not likely to mislead even the least-sophisticated debtor. See Jeter v. Credit
Bureau, Inc., 760 F.2d 1168, 1175–76 (11th Cir. 1985).
The debtors also argue that Mortgage Systems violated the Collection Act
when it filed foreclosure actions against them, but this argument also fails. Even if
it engaged in “debt collection activities” under the Collection Act, Mortgage
Systems did not violate section 559.72(9), because Mortgage Systems has the
authority to file foreclosure actions. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v.
Revoredo, 955 So. 2d 33, 34 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007); Mortgage Elec.
3
Registration Sys., Inc. v. Azize, 965 So. 2d 151,153–54 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007).
Florida law also provides post-litigation immunity for any foreclosure action filed
by Mortgage Systems. Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole,
950 So.2d 380, 384 (Fla. 2007).
The dismissal of the debtors’ complaint is
AFFIRMED.
4