Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-11148/USCOURTS-ca11-15-11148-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bank of America, N.A.
Appellee
Hope Bussenius
Appellant

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-11148

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-02408-AT

HOPE BUSSENIUS,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 versus

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

 Defendant-Appellee,

BAC HOME LOAN SERVICING, L.P.,

Defendant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(August 5, 2015)

Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 15-11148 Date Filed: 08/05/2015 Page: 1 of 4
2

Hope Bussenius brings this action against Bank of America, N.A. 

(“BANA”) for wrongful foreclosure, breach of contract, and other business torts 

related to foreclosure proceedings. Bussenius appeals the district court’s grant of 

summary judgment in favor of BANA. After careful review of the briefs and 

record, we affirm.

In considering the briefs on summary judgment, the district court concluded 

that Bussenius had waived the breach of contract claim and the tort claims. 

Although Bussenius’s brief on appeal makes arguments with respect to these 

claims, it fails to address the district court’s waiver holding. Accordingly, we 

decline to address these arguments made for the first time on appeal and affirm the 

district court’s holding that the contract and tort claims are waived.

The district court analyzed the substance of the wrongful foreclosure claim. 

The district court concluded that BANA properly proceeded with foreclosure under 

a 2010 loan modification, that BANA complied with the Georgia statutory notice 

of foreclosure requirements, and that Bussenius had failed to adduce evidence 

creating a genuine issue of fact showing a wrongful foreclosure.

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Moton 

v. Cowart, 631 F.3d 1337, 1341 (11th Cir. 2011). In doing so, we draw all 

inferences and review all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. “[I]f the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to 

USCA11 Case: 15-11148 Date Filed: 08/05/2015 Page: 2 of 4
3

any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law,” then 

summary judgment is appropriate. Id. To survive a motion for summary 

judgment, the nonmoving party must offer more than a mere scintilla of evidence 

for his position; rather, the nonmoving party must make a showing that is sufficient 

to allow a jury to reasonably find on his behalf. Brooks v. Cnty. Comm’n of 

Jefferson Cnty., Ala., 446 F.3d 1160, 1162 (11th Cir. 2006).

The district court held that Bussenius articulated only two theories of 

wrongful disclosure: (1) that BANA improperly refused Plaintiff’s mortgage 

payments; and (2) that BANA failed to comply with the notice of foreclosure 

requirements of Georgia law. With respect to the latter, Bussenius’s brief on 

appeal is so sparse and so conclusory that we deem that any challenge to the notice 

of foreclosure is abandoned. 

The district court comprehensively addressed the argument that BANA had 

improperly refused mortgage payments made by Bussenius. Appellant’s brief on 

appeal makes only conclusory assertions with respect to the district court’s 

analysis. For example, the district court held: “But Plaintiff offers no evidence to 

support her implicit assumption that this increase [in the monthly payments due 

from $3369.15 to $4175.09] was illegitimate.” D.C. Order, Docket 74, at 21. 

Appellant’s brief on appeal does not dispute this statement by the district court, 

USCA11 Case: 15-11148 Date Filed: 08/05/2015 Page: 3 of 4
4

and points to no evidence to indicate that BANA had illegitimately increased the 

mortgage payment.

For the foregoing reasons, and for the reasons set forth by the district court 

in its order granting summary judgment in favor of BANA, the judgment of the 

district court is 

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 15-11148 Date Filed: 08/05/2015 Page: 4 of 4