Feinschriber v. OCWEN Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 1:2018cv22381 - Document 32 (S.D. Fla. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 29 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Senior Judge James Lawrence King on 10/16/2019. See attached document for full details. (jw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Feinschriber v. OCWEN Loan Servicing, LLC Doc. 32 U N ITED STA TES DIST RICT C OU R T SO UT H ER N D IST RICT O F FLO R ID A M IAMIDIVISJON CAME NO.1:18-cv-22381-JLK ROBERT A.FEW SCHREIBER, N Plaintiff, OCW EN LOAN SERV ICIN G,LLC, . . î Defendant. ' / ORDER GM NTING DEFENDANT'SM OTION FO14SUM MARY JUDGMENT 'THIS M ATTER com esbeforetheCoul'ton DefendantOcwen Loan Serviçipg,LLC'S N. . (i$Ocwen'')M otion foyjummaryJudgmentfiledSeptember2,2019(DE 29)(theG(M otion'').1 . 1. BA CK GR OU N D P1aintiffbrtngsthisactionagainsthismortgagVeloanselwicer,Ocwen,asserjingviolations . ' . oftheRealEstateSettlementProceduresActIIERESPA''IandtheFairDebtCollectionPractices ' Act('IFDCPA').SeeCompl.,DE 1-2.#laintiffsclaimsariseoutofaloanmoditicationthat I Ocwen offered him in 2013,which required certain Sttrialperiod''paynnentsin orderfortheloan modifcation to becomeeffective.In Count1,Plaintiffclaim sOcwen violated RESPA by failing to correctitsalleged errorin denying theloan m odification afterPlaintiffsentam 'itten tçNotice ofError''explaining thathe m ade a11required trialperiod paym ents. ln Count1I,Plaintiffclaim s Ocwen violatçd theFDCPA by charging certain feesand expensesarising outofthe denialofthe . ' , loanmodification.Ocwennow movesvforsummaryjudgmentoneach ofPlaintiffsclaims. 1TheCourthasalso considered Plaintiff'sResponse, filedSeptember16,2019(DE 30);and Ocwen'sReply,ftedSeptember23,2019(DE 31). Dockets.Justia.com Thefollowing factsareundisputed.z On November12, 2013,Ocw en sentPlaintiffa letterofferinghim aloan modification with anew m onthly paymentof$2,874.56,consisting of $2,132.22 forprincipaland interestalong with a $742.34 Csescröw''paym entforproperty taxes andinsurance.SeeM ot.at3!2;ChildsDec.!5& Ex.A,D2 29-1at7.Enclosedwith Ocwen'sletterwasaçopy oftheproposed Loan M odifcation Agreem ent.SeeChilds.Dec.Ex. A,DE 29-1 at8.Accordingto paragraph 1oftheproposed Agreem ent,tcfortheterm softhis moditicationtpbecomeeffective,''Plaintiffwasrequiredtomaketttwo (2)equalmonthly ' . paym entsofprincipaland interestin theam ountof$2,132.22''starting on February 1,2014, whichtheAgreemçntdefnedastheStrl-rialPeriod.''f#.! 1.Paragraph 3f'urtherspeci/edthat tllajnypaymentsduefortaxesandinsurancewillbeyourresponsibility inadditiontothe Paymentsofprincipaiandinterestrequiredunderthetermsofthismodification.''1d.!3. Finally,paragraph 4 stated that(Cifyou failto send any fullpaym enton orbefore the respective duedateduringthet'riél Period,theTrialPeriodwillimmediatelyterminateandthe : ' .. ' f M odificationofferwillbenullandvoid.''f#.jg4.. Although Plaihtiffm adetwo paym entsof$2,132.22 in February and M arch 2014,itis undisputed thatPlaintiffdid notm akethe$742.34 escrow paym entsandtherefore did notpay thetotalamotlntof$2,874.56duringeitherofthesemonths.SeeM ot.at4!!9-10;ChildsDec. Ex.B,DE 29-1at13;Resp.at3!!9-10.On March 11,2014,Ocwen sentPlaintiffalçtter informinghim thattheloanmodiscationwasdenied.$eeM ot.at5!11. Overthree years later,on M ay 22,2017,Plaintiffs' entO cw en a SlN otice ofError''under RESPA claimingthathehadCGtimelymadethepaymentsrequired''andlidemandging)that 2 Pursuantto LocalRule 56. 1,the Courtconsiders the factsset 'forth in O cw en,s statem entof m aterialfacts,Plaintiff's opposing statem entofm aterialfacts,and the affidavitsand otherrecord evidence subm itted by each party. See M ot.at3-6,Exs.A & B ;Resp.at2-5,Ex.A . ' 2 Eocwen)complywiththetermsofthePermanentLoanM odiscation.''M ot.at5! 13;Compl.! 35 & Ex.B. On June'9,2017,Ocwen responded to theNotice ofErrorstatingthatthe loan m odification wasdeniedbecause Ocwen had llnotreceived therequired TrialPeriob Plan paym entsbytheend ofthetrial&neriod.''' ChildsDec.Ex.B,DE 29-1at27. ' . .. ' . Inthesameletter,OçwenalsoinformedPlaintiffthathistwo$2,132.22paymentshaL initiallybeenQçappliedtotherelatedloannumber(j3427 in errorp''butOcwenexplainedthatit itprocessednecessary correctionsandreversed theaboveftmdsand applied to theloan.''f#.at 28.Regardless,theloanm odifcation wasdenied becauseboth paym entswerestillshortby $742.34 based on Ocwen'sintelmretgtion oftheproposed Loan M odification Agreem ent. M ot. at9;ChildsDec.!6.P1aintiffcontestsOcwen'siniepretation,whichhesaysistscontrarytot0e . plainmeaningofParagraph 1oftheLoanM odificationAgreemenj.''Resp.at3!19. I1. LEG A L STA ND AR D SummaryjudgmentisappropriatewheredsthemovantshoWsthatthereisnogenuine disputeastoanymaterialfact:ndthemovantisentitledtojudgmentasamatteroflaw.''Fed. R.Civ.P.56(a).A tcgenuinedispute''meansGttheevidenceissuchthatareasonablejury could return averdictforthe nonmovingparty.''Anderson v.fiberty Lobby,Inc.,477 U.S.242,247- 48(1986).A tlmaterialféct''meansafactCithatmightaffecttheoutcomeofthesuitunderthe governing law.''f#. isFactualdisputesthatareirrelevantorunnecessary willnotbecotmted.'' lnopposingsllmmaryjudgment,thenonmovingpartyStmustsetforthspecificfactsshowing thatthere is a genuine issue fortrial.'' f#.at250. 111. D ISCU SSIO N A. OcwenIsEntitledtoSl/zzlazfll:pJudgmentoltPlaintW sRESPA Claint TheCourttkstaddressesPlAiniiffsRESPA claim.UnderRESPA anditsimplementing regulation (RegulatioùX),mol-tgagesmwicersmustSlinvestigateandrespondtowrittennotic: from aborrowerassertingthattherewasanerrorrelatedtotheservicinjofhismortgageloa1&.'' fagev.OcwenLoanServicingLLC, '839F.3d 1003,1007(11thCir.2016)(citing 12 C.F.R.j ' . 1024.35(a),(e)).Specifically,theservicertûmusteithercorrecttheen'ors..,andnotifythe borrowerin writing or,afterareasonableinvestigation,notify thçborrowerin writing'thatithas . determinednoerrorocculn-edandexplainthebasisforitsdecision.''Id.(citing 12C.F.R.j 1024.35(e)(1)(i)).Here,OcwenarguesthatCstherewasnoerrortocorrectconcerningtheLoan M odification Agreem ent...becausethepaym entsreceived in February 2014 apd M arch 2014 wereshortby $742.34.''M ot.at2. Plaintiffadm itsthathefailed tom akethesepaym ents,but arguesthat,based on hisintep retation ofthe proposed Loan M odification A greem ent,Sssaid amountswerenottheamotmtsrequired.''Resp.! 16. The Courtisnotpersuaded by Plaintiff sintep retation,w hich the Courtm ay decide as a matterof1aw on summaryjudgment.SeeUniv.HousingbyDaycoCorr.v.Foch,221So.3d t . ' 701,704(Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2017)(ltw lteretheresolutionofthçissuesinthelawsuitdepends on the conitruction and legaleffectofa contract,thequestion atissueisessentially one oflàw onlyanddeterminàblebyentry ofsummaryjudgment.'')(internalquotationmarksomittedl.3 UnderFloridalaw,acondition precedentGsm ay beeitheracondition precedentto theformation ofa contractor a condition precedentto the perform ance of an existing contract.'' M itchellv. 3The CourtappliesFlorida 1aw to the interpretation and enforceability ofthe proposed Loan M odifcation Agreem ent.SeeResnickv.UccelloImlnobilien G. ATS. #f Inc.,22V F.3d 1347,1350 n.4(11thCir.2000). 4 DiM are,936So.2(11178,1180(Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2006).Stlnthecaseofaconditionprecedent / toformation,...thecontractdoejnotexistunlessand untilthecondition occurs.''1d. ' . Here,Ocw en çreated acondition precedentto form ation by requiring Plaintifftom ake N ' ( ' çfullpaymentgsq...duringtheTrialPeriod''in orderfortheLoanM odificationAgreementto becomeeffective.DE 29-1at8!4(emphasisadded).BasedontheplainlanguageoftheLoan M odification A greem ent,com bined w ith the expresspaym entterm slisted in O cw en's N ovem ber 12,2013letter,theCourtfindsthataCtfullpayment''required$2,874.56,inciuding$2,132.22for principaland interestand $742.34 fprtheescrow paym ent.SeePhili psLake Worth,L.P.v. BanW tlantic,85So.3d 1221,1225(Fla.Diit.Ct.App.2012)(EcW herean agreementcomprises m orethan onedocum ent,thedocum entsshould beconsideredtogetherin interpreting the parties'agreement.'')r.Indeed,theAgreementclearlystatedthatGtgajnypaymentsduefortaxes . 2' ) . . . . andinsurancewillbegplaintiffsqresponsibility in additiontothe paymentsofpri ncipaland l . interest,''andthatthefailuretomakeçLanyfullpayment...duringtheTrialPeriod''would renderStthéM odificationoffer...pullandvoid.''DE 29-1at8!!3--4(emphasisadded). Plaintiff'sargumentthathewasonly requiredto pay $2,132.22 forprincipaland interestsim ply m lies on one isolated paragraph ofthe A greem entw hile ignoring these rem aining portions and theexpresstermsin Ocwen'sletter.SeeFla.Inv.Glp.100,LLC v.Lafont,271So.3d1,4-5 (F1a.Dist.Ct.App.2019)($:A keyprincipleofcontractintepretationisthatcourtsmustnotread alsingleterm orgroup o'fwordsin isolation.''l;Phili p M orrisInc.v.French,897 So.2c1480,488 (F1a.Dist.Ct.App.2004)tstcoullsarerequiredto construeacontractasawho1e.'').Becauseit isupdisputedthatPlaintifffailed to m akepaym entsof$2,874.56 during theTrialPeriod,the Courtconcludes thatthe Loan M odifcation A greep entneverbecam e effective,and there w as therefore no (ien-or''to correctunder RESPA concerning the proposed loan m oditication. h . TheCourtalsofindsthatOcwen isentitledtosummaryjùdgmentbecauseitcomplied with theapplicableerror-resolution proceduressetforth in Regulation X in any event.As discussed above,aservicerm ayrespondto anoticeoferroreitherby correcting theerroror, as relevanthere,by copdgcting areasonable investigation and notifying theborrowerin writing that theservicerhasdeterlpinedthatno erroroccun'ed and explaining thebasisforthatdecision. See 12 C.F.R.j1024.35(e)(1)(i)(B).Ihthiscase,Plaintiffdoesnotclaim thatOcFenfailedto ( ' f . conductatreasonableinvestigation,''and theundisputed factsshow thatOcw en respondedto Plaintiff'sNoticeofErroron June 9,2017,notifyingPlaintiffin writing 'thattheproposed loan modificationV dbeendeniedbecauseOcwelididnotreceivetherequiredpaymentsduringthe TriàlPeriod. Plaintiffm ay disagree w ith thatdeterm ination,butas O cw elt correctly notes, ttm ere disagreem entwith fheoutcome' ofareasonableinvestigation doesnotestablish aRESPA , ' violation.'?Finsterv.US.BankNat'lAss'n,245F.Supp.3d 1304,1317(M .D.Fla.2017). Accordingly,theCourtèoncludesthatOcwenisentitledtojudymentasamatterof1aw on ' . Plaintiff'sIV SPA claim . B. OcweaIsEntitledtoSummary JudgntentoltJvfl/a/l-/'xFDCPA Claim . ' TheCoul'talsofindsihatOcwenisentitledtosummaryjudgïentonPlaintiff'sFDCPA claim because theclaim isban'edby theone-yearstatuteoflim itations.A civilaction asserting an FDCPA violation mustbebroughtllwithin one yearfrom the date on which theviolqtion occurs.''15U.s.c.j 1692k(d).Toestablish anFDCPA violation,theplaintiffmustprovethat thedefendantengagçd in Ctdebtcollection activity,''which requiressome Stexplicitorimplicit dem ahd forpayment.''SeePinson k.'JP M organ ChaseBank Nat1Ass'n,646 F.App'x 812,. 814(11thCir.2016)(citingCaceresv.MccallaRaymèr,LLC,755F.3d 1299,1302(11tl)Cir. 2014)).Here,asOcwenpointsout,theonlyrelevantconductthatoc. curredwithinoneyearprior 6 tp thislawsuitincludeROcwen'sdismissalofaforeclosure action and itsresponseto theNotice ofEnor,neitherofwhich involved adem and forpaym ent.TheCourtalso notesthatPlaintiff . l ' . failedto addressthisissuein responseto Ocwen'sM otion.Accordingly,theCourtfndsthat w ocwenisalsoentitledtosummaryjudgmentonPlaintiffsFDCPA.c1aim. 1V . C O N CLU SION BecausetheCourtfindsthatthereareno genuineissuesofmaterialfactand thatOcwen ' isentitledtojudgmentasamatlerofl>w oneachofPlaintiffsclaims,summaryjudgmentin OCWCII'Sfavörisappropriate. Accordingly,itisORDERED ,ADJUDGED ,AND DECREED thatOcFen'sMotion?qrSummaryJudgment(DE 29)be,andthesameherebyis,GRANTED. A tinaljudgmentwillbeenteredin aseparatedocumentpursuanttoFed.R.Civ.P.58(a). D O NE A N D O RD ER ED in Cham bers atthe Jam esLawrence K ing FederalJustice Building and United StatesCourthousein M iami,Florida,on this 16th day ofOctober,2019. t A M ES LA W REN CE K IN G UN ITED STA TES D ISTRICT JU Allcdunselofrecord
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
