UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION 

CASE NO.: _______________ 

VINCENT J. MORRIS, on behalf of himself 

and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

JURY DEMAND

PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION d/b/a 

PHH MORTGAGE SERVICES, 

a New Jersey Corporation, 

Defendant.

______________________________________/ 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff Vincent J. Morris brings this action, on behalf of himself and all others similarly 

situated, against Defendant PHH Mortgage Corporation d/b/a PHH Mortgage Services (“PHH” or 

“Defendant”) and states: 

NATURE OF ACTION

1. Plaintiff Vincent J. Morris is the owner of a house at 1868 NW 74 Avenue,

Hollywood, Florida 33024, which is subject to a mortgage serviced by PHH. PHH has a uniform 

practice of knowingly charging illegal and improper “processing fees” when payments on the 

mortgage are made over the phone or online, although neither the mortgage nor Florida Law 

expressly authorizes those fees. PHH has charged these “processing fees” to Plaintiff, who has 

paid them. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks relief for himself and all others similarly situated for 

violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (“FCCPA”), Fla. Stat. §§ 559.55 et 

seq., for breach of contract, and for unjust enrichment. 

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Broward County, Florida and owns property

located at 1868 NW 74 Avenue, Hollywood, Florida 33024. 

3. Defendant PHH is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ocwen Financial Corporation.

PHH is an entity existing and incorporated pursuant to the laws of New Jersey with its principal 

place of business at 1 Mortgage Way, Mount Laurel, New Jersey 08054. Defendant is therefore a 

Case 0:20-cv-60633-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2020 Page 1 of 9
- 2 -

corporate citizen of New Jersey. Defendant is amenable to service of process c/o Corporation 

Service Company, 1201 Hays Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. Plaintiff has standing to bring a claim under the FCCPA because he was directly 

affected by violations of the FCCPA, was subjected to Defendant’s illegal and improper debt 

collection activities, and suffered injury in fact as a direct consequence of Defendant’s illegal and 

improper debt collection activities, in the form of unlawful “processing fees” paid.

5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1332(d)(2)(A) because this is a class action for a sum exceeding $5,000,000.00, exclusive of 

interest and costs, and in which at least one class member is a citizen of a state different than PHH. 

Additionally, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1332(a)(1) as Plaintiff, a Florida citizen, brings his individual claims against a New Jersey citizen, 

and given the nature of the claims and the declaratory and injunctive relief sought, the amount in 

controversy is greater than $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. 

6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over PHH because PHH is authorized to do 

business and is conducting business throughout the United States, including in Florida. PHH

services mortgages in the United States, including Florida, and has sufficient minimum contacts 

with this State and/or sufficiently avails itself of the markets of the various states of the United 

States, including Florida, to render the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court permissible. 

7. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because this action 

concerns a mortgage on real property in the Southern District of Florida and a substantial part of 

the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims took place in the Southern District of Florida. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

8. Plaintiff purchased his home at 1868 NW 74 Avenue, Hollywood, Florida 33024.

Plaintiff financed this purchase with a mortgage that was entered into on March 2, 2006. A copy 

of the mortgage is attached as Exhibit A (the “Mortgage”). 

9. At all relevant times, the Mortgage was serviced by PHH. The Mortgage does not 

expressly provide for or authorize charging processing fees for making payments online or over 

the phone. Furthermore, such processing fees are not expressly authorized by Florida state law. 

10. Plaintiff was charged a $17.50 “processing fee” in April 2019, May 2019, and 

October 2019 for making a mortgage payment to PHH over the phone or online. Plaintiff was 

Case 0:20-cv-60633-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2020 Page 2 of 9
- 3 -

charged a $7.50 “processing fee” in June 2019, July 2019, August 2019, September 2019, 

November 2019, December 2019, January 2020, and February 2020 for making a mortgage 

payment to PHH over the phone or online. The “processing fee” is reflected as “SpeedPay” on 

Plaintiff’s Mortgage statements. 

11. Where, like here, neither the contract creating the debt nor applicable law expressly 

authorizes the charging of processing fees, such as those charged by PHH, such fees have been 

held unlawful because they violate the FCCPA when the debt collector retains any portion of the 

fee instead of passing the entire fee through to the payment processor. 

12. PHH does not pass the entire fee to a payment processor and instead retains a 

considerable portion thereof. PHH fails to mention any third-party payment processor in any 

documentation available to Plaintiff, including his payment history. It is well known in the 

payment processing industry (but not by the general public) that third-party processors charge a 

small fraction of the amounts PHH charges as “processing fees.” Defendant’s records will 

demonstrate the exact amount PHH retains for each processing fee charged. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

13. As detailed below in the individual counts, Plaintiff brings this lawsuit on behalf of 

himself and all others similarly situated, pursuant to Rule 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

A. Class Definitions

14. Plaintiff seeks to represent the following 3 “Florida Classes”:

FCCPA SUBCLASS: All individuals in the state of Florida who, 

during the applicable limitations period, paid a processing fee to 

PHH for paying over the phone or online in connection with any 

residential mortgage loan owned or serviced by PHH. All employees 

of PHH, the Court, and Plaintiff’s counsel are excluded from this 

class. 

BREACH OF CONTRACT SUBCLASS: All individuals in the 

state of Florida who, during the applicable limitations period, paid a 

processing fee to PHH for paying over the phone or online in 

connection with any residential mortgage loan owned or serviced by 

PHH. All employees of PHH, the Court, and Plaintiff’s counsel are 

excluded from this class. 

UNJUST ENRICHMENT SUBCLASS: All individuals in the 

state of Florida who, during the applicable limitations period, paid a 

Case 0:20-cv-60633-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2020 Page 3 of 9
- 4 -

processing fee to PHH for paying over the phone or online in 

connection with any residential mortgage loan owned or serviced by 

PHH. All employees of PHH, the Court, and Plaintiff’s counsel are 

excluded from this class.

15. Plaintiff reserves the right to modify or amend the definition of the proposed Class 

before or after the Court determines whether such certification is appropriate as discovery 

progresses.

B. Numerosity

16. The Class is comprised of hundreds, if not thousands, of customers throughout the 

state of Florida, many of whom pay their mortgages online or over the phone. The Class is so 

numerous that joinder of all members of the Class is impracticable. The precise number of class

members is unknown to Plaintiff, but the precise number and identity of class members are easily 

identifiable through Defendant’s records. 

C. Commonality/Predominance

17. This action involves common questions of law and fact, which predominate over 

any questions affecting individual class members. These common legal and factual questions 

include, but are not limited to, the following: 

(a) whether PHH’s practice of charging a “processing fee,” which is not authorized by 

contract or any provision of existing law, violates the FCCPA;

(b) whether PHH’s practice of charging a “processing fee,” which is not authorized by 

contract or any provision of existing law, constitutes a breach of Plaintiff and the 

class members’ mortgage contracts;

(c) whether PHH has been unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiff and the Class 

members as a result of PHH’s charging and collection of “processing fees,” which 

are not authorized by contract or existing law; 

(d) whether Plaintiff and Class members have sustained monetary loss and the proper 

measure of that loss; and

(e) whether Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to other appropriate remedies, 

including injunctive relief.

D. Typicality

18. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Florida Classes 

because, inter alia, all Class members were injured through the uniform misconduct described 

above, all members of the Florida Classes have mortgages serviced by PHH just like Plaintiff, and 

Plaintiff is advancing the same claims and legal theories on behalf of himself and all Class 

Case 0:20-cv-60633-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2020 Page 4 of 9
- 5 -

Members. It is well known in the mortgage industry that mortgages generally do not expressly 

authorize processing fees to be charged in order to make a payment online or over the phone. 

E. Adequacy of Representation

19. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of the Class. 

Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in complex consumer class action litigation, and 

Plaintiff intends to prosecute this action vigorously. Plaintiff has no adverse or antagonistic 

interests to those of the Florida Classes. Plaintiff anticipates no difficulty in the management of 

this litigation as a class action. To prosecute this case, Plaintiff has chosen the undersigned law 

firms, which have the financial and legal resources to meet the substantial costs and legal issues 

associated with this type of consumer class litigation.

F. Requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)

20. The questions of law or fact common to Plaintiff’s and each Class member’s claims 

predominate over any questions of law or fact affecting only individual members of the Class. All 

claims by Plaintiff and the unnamed Class members are based on the common course of conduct 

by PHH to charge illegal “processing fees” to Plaintiff and the unnamed Class members.

21. Common issues predominate when, as here, liability can be determined on a classwide basis, even when there will be some individualized damages determinations.

22. As a result, when determining whether common questions predominate, courts 

focus on the liability issue, and if the liability issue is common to the Class as is in the case at bar, 

common questions will be held to predominate over individual questions.

G. Superiority

23. A class action is superior to individual actions in part because of the nonexhaustive factors listed below:

(a) Joinder of all Class members would create extreme hardship and inconvenience for 

the affected customers as they reside throughout the country;

(b) Individual claims by Class members are impractical because the costs to pursue 

individual claims exceed the value of what any one Class member has at stake. As 

a result, individual Class members have no interest in prosecuting and controlling 

separate actions;

(c) There are no known individual Class members who are interested in individually 

controlling the prosecution of separate actions;

(d) The interests of justice will be well served by resolving the common disputes of 

potential Class members in one forum;

Case 0:20-cv-60633-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2020 Page 5 of 9
- 6 -

(e) Individual suits would not be cost effective or economically maintainable as 

individual actions; and

(f) The action is manageable as a class action.

H. Requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2)

24. PHH has acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the classes by 

engaging in a common course of conduct by PHH to charge illegal “processing fees” to Plaintiff 

and the unnamed Class members, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief with respect 

to the classes as a whole. 

COUNT I

For Violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act,

§ 559.55, Florida Statutes, et seq.

(On behalf of Plaintiff and Members of the Florida Classes)

25. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in 

paragraphs 1–24 as if fully set forth herein.

26. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Consumer Collection 

Practices Act, section 559.55, Fla. Stat., et seq. (“FCCPA”). 

27. At all times material, Plaintiff and the members of the Florida Classes were 

“debtors” or “consumers” as defined in section 559.55(8), Florida Statutes, because each was a 

natural person obligated to pay the mortgage debts at issue. 

28. At all times material, the Plaintiff’s and the Florida Classes’ debts were “debts” or 

“consumer debts” as defined in section 559.55(6), Florida Statutes, because they were each an 

obligation of a consumer to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the property that was 

the subject of the transaction was primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.

29. Section 559.72(9) provides that “[i]n collecting consumer debts, no person shall 

[c]laim, attempt, or threaten to enforce a debt when such person knows that the debt is not 

legitimate, or assert the existence of some other legal right when such person knows that the right 

does not exist.”

30. The “processing fees” charged to Plaintiff and members of the Florida Classes were 

incidental to the consumer debts.

31. However, Defendant had no legal right to seek collection of (or to actually collect) 

any “processing fees” from Plaintiff and members of the Florida Classes. Defendant had and still 

has the underlying contracts in its possession, custody or control, which do not expressly authorize 

Case 0:20-cv-60633-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2020 Page 6 of 9
- 7 -

these “processing fees,” and Defendant therefore had actual knowledge that it had no legal right 

to collect these fees.

32. Defendant had actual knowledge that the “processing fee” is not authorized by the 

mortgage contracts of Plaintiff and the members of the Florida Classes or by Florida law, and 

therefore in charging the “processing fees” knowingly violated Section 559.72(9), Florida Statutes, 

by claiming and attempting to enforce a debt which was not legitimate and not due and owing.

33. As a direct and primary result of Defendant’s FCCPA violations, Plaintiff and 

others similarly situated have been harmed. Plaintiff and the Class members are entitled to actual 

damages, statutory damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees and costs 

pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 559.77(2). 

COUNT II

Breach of Contract

(On behalf of Plaintiff and Members of the Florida Classes)

34. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in 

paragraphs 1–24 as if fully set forth herein. 

35. Plaintiff’s mortgage contract and the mortgage contracts of members of the Florida 

Classes do not provide for or authorize a “processing fee.” 

36. Defendant, in servicing the mortgage loans of Plaintiff and members of the Florida 

Class, sought to collect, and did in fact collect from Plaintiffs and members of the Florida Cass, a 

“processing fee” not provided for or authorized in the mortgage contracts.

37. In collecting a “processing fee” not authorized or agreed to in the mortgage 

contracts, Defendant breached the mortgage contracts. 

38. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, Plaintiff and members of 

the Florida Classes suffered actual damages, in the form of payment of non-contractual 

“processing fees.”

COUNT III

Unjust Enrichment

(On behalf of Plaintiff and Members of the Florida Classes)

39. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in 

paragraphs 1–24 as if fully set forth herein. 

Case 0:20-cv-60633-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2020 Page 7 of 9
- 8 -

40. Plaintiff pleads this count for unjust enrichment in the alternative to his count for 

breach of contract.

41. PHH charged Plaintiff and members of the Florida Classes a “processing fee” for 

payments made on their debts, and such fee was not authorized under the mortgage contracts 

entered into or by Florida law. 

42. Plaintiff and consumers in the Florida Classes conferred upon PHH non-gratuitous 

payments of the “processing fees.” PHH appreciated, accepted and/or retained, in whole or in part, 

the non-gratuitous benefits conferred by Plaintiff and members of the Florida Class, with full 

knowledge and awareness that the “processing fees” were not authorized by the mortgage contracts 

or by Florida law. 

43. PHH profited from its unlawful collection and retention of the “processing fees” it 

charged at the expense of Plaintiff and members of the Florida Class, under circumstances in which 

it would be unjust for PHH to be permitted to retain the benefit. Under common law principles of 

unjust enrichment, PHH should not be permitted to retain the benefits of this unjust enrichment. 

44. Because PHH’s retention of the non-gratuitous benefits conferred by Plaintiff and 

members of the Florida Classes is unjust and inequitable, Plaintiff and members of the Florida 

Classes are entitled to, and hereby seek disgorgement and restitution of PHH’s wrongful profits, 

revenue, and benefits in a manner established by the Court. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for a judgment:

a. Certifying the Florida Classes as requested herein;

b. Awarding Plaintiff and members of the Florida Classes actual and statutory 

damages;

c. Awarding restitution and disgorgement of Defendant’s revenues to Plaintiff and 

consumers in the Florida Class; 

d. Awarding declaratory and injunctive relief as permitted by law or equity, including 

declaring PHH’s practices as set forth herein to be unlawful and enjoining PHH 

from continuing those unlawful practices as set forth herein, and directing PHH to 

identify, with Court supervision, victims of its conduct and pay them all money 

it is required to pay; 

e. Awarding statutory damages, as appropriate;

f. Awarding attorneys’ fees and costs; and

g. Providing such further relief as may be just and proper.

Case 0:20-cv-60633-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2020 Page 8 of 9
- 9 -

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial as to all claims so triable.

Dated: March 25, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Adam M. Moskowitz__

Adam M. Moskowitz

Florida Bar No. 984280

adam@moskowitz-law.com 

Howard M. Bushman

Florida Bar No. 0364230

howard@moskowitz-law.com 

Joseph M. Kaye

Florida Bar No. 117520

joseph@moskowitz-law.com

Barbara C. Lewis

Florida Bar 118114

barbara@moskowitz-law.com

THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC

2 Alhambra Plaza

Suite 601

Coral Gables, FL 33134

Telephone: (305) 740-1423

/s/ Josh Migdal______

MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN

80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 1999

Miami, Florida 33130

Telephone: (305) 374-0440

Josh Migdal, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 19136

josh@markmigdal.com

Yaniv Adar, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 63804

yaniv@markmigdal.com

eservice@markmigdal.com

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class

Case 0:20-cv-60633-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2020 Page 9 of 9