[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-12850

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

PAULETTE E. RAKESTRAW, 

On behalf of herself and all persons similarly situated, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cv-03144-ELR

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-12850 Date Filed: 03/04/2022 Page: 1 of 15
2 Opinion of the Court 21-12850

Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In this purported class action, Paulette E. Rakestraw asserts 

a single claim against Nationstar Mortgage LLC (“Nationstar”), the 

servicer of her home mortgage, under the Real Estate Settlement 

Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2605, et seq. RESPA, 

among other things, requires that loan servicers provide 

information to borrowers about their loans upon written request. 

Rakestraw alleges that Nationstar’s “incomprehensible” responses 

to her requests for information did not comply with RESPA’s 

requirements. The district court granted summary judgment to 

Nationstar, finding its responses to Rakestraw’s requests for 

information adequate, and that, regardless, Rakestraw failed to 

show actual damages—a required element of a RESPA claim. After 

careful review, we agree that Nationstar’s responses complied with 

RESPA and affirm. 

I. Factual Background 

In April 2004, Rakestraw obtained a loan to purchase a home

in Hiram, Georgia. From April 2004 to April 2013, Countrywide 

Home Loans and Bank of America serviced Rakestraw’s loan. On 

April 1, 2013, servicing of the loan transferred from Bank of 

America to Nationstar. 

On November 28, 2017, Nationstar received a letter from 

Rakestraw requesting

USCA11 Case: 21-12850 Date Filed: 03/04/2022 Page: 2 of 15
21-12850 Opinion of the Court 3

1) [A] [c]omplete payment history that 

includes an explanation and breakdown of all 

charges and credits applied during the life of 

the loan dating back to 2003 [sic], the 

origination of the loan. 2) A certified copy of 

the original note in its current condition/state. 

3) A signed affidavit from someone in the 

company stating that the note is the original, 

not a scanned copy. 

All parties agree that this letter constituted a qualified written 

request (“QWR”) under RESPA, even though it only requested

information and did not assert any errors relating to Nationstar’s 

servicing of Rakestraw’s loan.1 

Two days later, Nationstar responded to the November 

2017 QWR. It provided Rakestraw with a copy of transaction 

histories covering the entire life of the loan up until that date. 

Nationstar also sent Rakestraw a copy of the note and security 

instrument. Nationstar also informed Rakestraw that it could not 

provide her with a certified copy of the Note and signed affidavit 

until the loan was paid in full, informed her of the location of the 

1 Section 2605 contemplates two types of QWRs—one providing a notice of 

an error and the other simply requesting information. A QWR asserting an 

error under RESPA triggers slightly different requirements than those 

triggered by a QWR requesting information. Compare 12 C.F.R. § 1024.35(e) 

(outlining a mortgage servicer’s obligations in response to a QWR providing 

notice of an alleged error) with 12 C.F.R. § 1024.36 (d) (providing the 

requirements for responding to a QWR that requests information). 

USCA11 Case: 21-12850 Date Filed: 03/04/2022 Page: 3 of 15
4 Opinion of the Court 21-12850

originals, and gave her a name and contact information for further 

assistance.2

Then on April 16, 2018, Rakestraw sent a second QWR to 

Nationstar requesting information but, again, not identifying any 

errors. This time, however, Rakestraw asked for “an explanation 

and detailed breakdown of all” Bank of America payments and “an 

explanation and detailed breakdown of all escrow payments” for 

the entire history of the loan. 

Four days later, Nationstar responded with a copy of 

Rakestraw’s updated transaction history reflecting the period 

during which Nationstar serviced the loan through March 13, 2018 

along with the transaction history for the loan from 2004-2006 

when Countrywide was the servicer. In addition, Nationstar 

informed Rakestraw that the Bank of America transaction history, 

which Nationstar provided Rakestraw in its response to the first 

QWR, and which Rakestraw had independently obtained from 

Bank of America, was difficult to read and told her to contact Bank 

of America directly if she wanted a different version. Nationstar 

also explained that it could not attest to how funds were disbursed 

from escrow under the loan’s prior servicers. And once again, 

Nationstar gave Rakestraw the direct phone number and email 

address of a representative to contact for further assistance, stating: 

“[i]f you have any specific questions about the information I have 

provided, please contact me directly.” 

2 Rakestraw went on to send three additional QWR’s, which we discuss below. 

But on March 16, 2018, before she sent her second QWR, Rakestraw informed 

Nationstar that she had contacted Bank of America directly and received a 

copy of the transaction history for the period before Nationstar took over the 

servicing of her loan. 

USCA11 Case: 21-12850 Date Filed: 03/04/2022 Page: 4 of 15
21-12850 Opinion of the Court 5

Rakestraw submitted a third request for information on May 

4, 2018. Much like she did in the first two QWRs, Rakestraw 

sought a complete transaction history for the life of the loan, 

including “an explanation and breakdown of all charges and credits 

applied . . . including an explanation of all the miscellaneous 

charges, and a detailed comprehensive breakdown of the escrow” 

dating back to the origination of the loan. Further, Rakestraw 

again requested a certified copy of the original note and an affidavit 

attesting to its authenticity. And, consistent with the past QWRs, 

Rakestraw did not identify any errors in the servicing of her loan. 

Nationstar responded to this QWR six days later, sending

Rakestraw a copy of the note, an updated transaction history,

escrow history for the period during which Nationstar had serviced 

the loan, a copy of the transaction history from 2004–2006, and a 

copy of its response to Rakestraw’s second QWR (which sought

much of the same information). Nationstar also informed 

Rakestraw that it could not provide the original copy of the note 

until the loan was fully satisfied, reiterating that Nationstar could 

not attest to how the funds were used by prior servicers, that the 

Bank of America transaction history was difficult to read, and 

suggesting she contact Bank of America directly for a better 

version. And, again, Nationstar gave Rakestraw contact 

information to help her seek further assistance. 

Later that month, on May 29, 2018, Nationstar received yet 

another QWR from Rakestraw, in which Rakestraw wrote 

I have asked multiple times over the last year for you 

to provide me detailed accounting information 

regarding my loan through the QWR process. To 

this date, you have still not provided me with the 

USCA11 Case: 21-12850 Date Filed: 03/04/2022 Page: 5 of 15
6 Opinion of the Court 21-12850

adequate information. Your last two responses were 

directing me to contact Bank of America, the 

previous servicer from over 4 years ago, because it is 

not readable or available in your system. It is 

astonishing that you send me a monthly bill when 

you haven’t validated or researched per my QWR’s 

[sic] any of these amounts you claim that I owe. 

She also requested an “explanation and detailed breakdown” of all 

charges and credits for the entire history of the loan, including all 

escrow payments. Furthermore, Rakestraw demanded a “legible 

and comprehensible breakdown of the account history” or, for the 

first time in any of her four QWRs, a “code sheet to be able to 

interpret” the account history. Once again, Rakestraw only sought 

information and did not identify any errors on her account. 

Nationstar responded two days later providing, among 

other things, account histories for the entire life of the loan, a code 

sheet for Nationstar’s transaction history, contact information for 

a Nationstar representative, and its response to her April QWR. 

Nationstarreiterated that it could not provide a code sheet for Bank 

of America or Countrywide’s transaction history. It noted “[b]ased

on the information provided by the previous servicer, the payment 

history appears to be reported accurately[,]” however, it also told 

Rakestraw that: “[i]f you have documentation that substantiates 

that any of the information reported by [Nationstar] or the prior 

servicer is incorrect, please provide the detailed information for 

review.” 

II. Procedural Background 

 

USCA11 Case: 21-12850 Date Filed: 03/04/2022 Page: 6 of 15
21-12850 Opinion of the Court 7

In June 2018, Rakestraw filed this purported class action 

against Nationstar. In her amended class action complaint—

Rakestraw alleged that Nationstar violated RESPA by “refus[ing] 

to provide [a] complete and comprehensible account history[] and 

the explanation[] of charges and credits” which she requested in 

four separate QWRs. Accordingly, she sought actual and statutory 

damages in addition to attorney’s fees and costs. 

After some discovery, Nationstar filed a motion for 

summary judgment in November 2020, along with its statement of 

undisputed material facts. In its motion, Nationstar contended that

its responses to Rakestraw’s four requests for information 

complied with RESPA and that, even if they did not, Rakestraw 

failed to show that she was entitled to actual or statutory damages. 

Although Rakestraw responded to Nationstar’s motion, she failed 

to provide her own statement of undisputed facts as is required by 

the local rules. See N.D. Ga. C. Rule 56.1(B). In December 2020, 

she filed a motion seeking leave to amend her summary judgment 

response to add a statement of undisputed facts or, alternatively, to 

file a surreply. 

The magistrate judge issued an Order and Final Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) in March 2021. The magistrate judge

first recommended denying Rakestraw’s motion for leave to 

amend because she failed to offer any legitimate justification for 

not filing a statement of undisputed facts, deeming as admitted the 

facts alleged in Nationstar’s statement of undisputed facts as a 

result. The magistrate judge recommended that the district court 

grant summary judgment to Nationstar because Nationstar 

“adequately responded” to Rakestraw’s QWRs under RESPA as a 

USCA11 Case: 21-12850 Date Filed: 03/04/2022 Page: 7 of 15
8 Opinion of the Court 21-12850

matter of law, and that Rakestraw failed to create a genuine issue 

of fact or show damages—actual or statutory. 

 

 Rakestraw objected to the R&R’s recommendation to grant 

summary judgment but did not object to the recommendation to 

deny her motion to amend her summary judgment response with 

a statement of undisputed facts. The district court overruled 

Rakestraw’s objections. The district court specifically found that 

Nationstar’s responses complied with RESPA and that Nationstar 

“performed a ‘reasonable search’ as required by RESPA” in 

connection with Rakestraw’s request for information from Bank of 

America. Concluding that Rakestraw failed to demonstrate a 

material issue as to: (1) whether Nationstar’s responses complied 

with RESPA; (2) whether Nationstar conducted a reasonable 

search for records connected to a prior servicer; (3) whether 

Rakestraw incurred actual damages; and (4) whether Nationstar’s 

conduct entitled her to statutory damages, the district court 

adopted the R&R and granted summary judgment to Nationstar. 

Rakestraw timely appealed. 

 

III. Discussion 

 

On appeal, Rakestraw says that Nationstar’s handling of her

requests for information violated RESPA in two ways. First, she 

claims that the account histories Nationstar provided her were 

“incomprehensible” and thus did not provide her with the 

information she requested per RESPA’s requirements. Second, she 

says that Nationstar failed to perform a reasonable search for 

information that she requested relating to a prior servicer and that 

USCA11 Case: 21-12850 Date Filed: 03/04/2022 Page: 8 of 15
21-12850 Opinion of the Court 9

Nationstar failed to give her proper notice that the information was 

not available to it. 

Nationstar counters that it adequately responded to the 

substance of Rakestraw’s QWRs and that it performed a reasonable 

search and properly notified Rakestraw that it did not have some 

of the requested information. 

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, 

“applying the same legal standards used by the district court.” 

Yarbrough v. Decatur Housing Auth., 941 F.3d 1022, 1026 (11th 

Cir. 2019). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant 

shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and 

the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 56 (a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). 

Because this is an appeal from summary judgment, typically 

we would view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Hardigree v. Lofton, 992 F.3d 1216, 1223 (11th 

Cir. 2021). But because Rakestraw failed to comply with N.D. Ga. 

Local Rule 56.1 by not filing a statement of undisputed material 

fact in response to Nationstar’s, we “disregard or ignore evidence 

relied on by [Rakestraw]—but not cited in its response to 

[Nationstar’s] statement of undisputed facts—that yields facts 

contrary to those listed in [Nationstar’s] statement.” See Reese v. 

Herbert, 527 F.3d 1253, 1268 (11th Cir. 2008).3 Having considered

3 We have called compliance with Local Rule 56.1 “the only permissible way 

for [the non-movant] to establish a genuine issue of material fact at that stage,” 

see Reese, 527 F.3d at 1268, but that does not mean we automatically affirm 

the grant of summary judgment to Nationstar. As the moving party, 

Nationstar still bears the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue 

USCA11 Case: 21-12850 Date Filed: 03/04/2022 Page: 9 of 15
10 Opinion of the Court 21-12850

Nationstar’s statement of undisputed material facts against the 

record as a whole, we treat the facts listed therein as admitted for 

purposes of this appeal. See id. 

Despite the admitted facts, Nationstar, as the moving party,

“bears the initial responsibility” of demonstrating to the absence of 

any genuine issue of fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. However, 

Nationstar need not disprove Rakestraw’s claim—it need only 

“show[]” an “absence of evidence to support [her] case.” See id. at 

325. “Mere conclusions and unsupported factual allegations are 

legally insufficient” to defeat a summary judgment motion. Bald 

Mountain Park, Ltd. v. Oliver, 863 F.2d 1560, 1563 (11th Cir.1989). 

RESPA “is a consumer protection statute that imposes a 

duty on servicers of mortgage loans to acknowledge and respond 

to inquiries from borrowers,” such as the four requests for 

information Rakestraw sent to Nationstar. See Bivens v. Bank of 

Am., N.A., 868 F.3d 915, 918 (11th Cir. 2017). The statute requires 

mortgage servicers to comply with the obligations set forth in 12 

U.S.C. § 2605 and federal regulations promulgated to “carry out the 

consumer protection purposes of” the statute. Id. § (k)(1)(E). It 

also provides a private right of action to those harmed by a 

servicer’s failure to comply with RESPA. Id. § 2605(f). 

RESPA requires that a servicer respond to a QWR by:

. . . conducting an investigation, [and then]

provid[ing] the borrower with a written explanation 

or clarification that includes . . .(i) information 

requested by the borrower or an explanation of why 

of fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Celotex, 477 

U.S. at 23. 

USCA11 Case: 21-12850 Date Filed: 03/04/2022 Page: 10 of 15
21-12850 Opinion of the Court 11

the information requested is unavailable or cannot be 

obtained by the servicer; and (ii) the name and 

telephone number of an individual employed by, or 

the office or department of, the servicer who can 

provide assistance to the borrower.

Id. § 2605(e)(2)(C). 

In addition, 12 C.F.R. § 1024.36 provides that a servicer who 

receives a QWR requesting information “with respect to the 

borrower’s mortgage loan account” must either: (1) “[p]rovid[e]

the borrower with the requested information and contact 

information, including a telephone number, for further assistance 

in writing;” or (2)

[c]onduct[] a reasonable search for the requested 

information and provid[e] the borrower with a 

written notification that states that the servicer has 

determined that the requested information is not 

available to the servicer, provides the basis for the 

servicer’s determination, and provides contact 

information, including a telephone number, for 

further assistance.

Id. § 1024.36(a),(d)(1)–(2).4 

4 Although this Court has not explained the contours of what constitutes an 

adequate response to a request for information under RESPA, we have opined 

that what constitutes an adequate response to a QWR asserting errors, see 12 

C.F.R. § 1024.35(e), is one that actually responds to the borrower’s specific 

inquiry. For example, in Renfroe v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, we held that a 

borrower plausibly alleged a RESPA violation when she claimed that her loan 

servicer failed to respond to her request for an explanation of alleged errors in 

her account statement. Instead, the servicer sent “boilerplate statements” 

USCA11 Case: 21-12850 Date Filed: 03/04/2022 Page: 11 of 15
12 Opinion of the Court 21-12850

To prevail on a RESPA claim, a plaintiff must show: (1) a 

defendant’s failure to comply with a RESPA obligation; and, (2) 

that she sustained actual damages as a result. Renfroe v. Nationstar 

Mortg., LLC, 822 F.3d 1241, 1244 (11th Cir. 2016). Therefore, 

Rakestraw bears the burden of showing that Nationstar’s actions 

violated RESPA—i.e., that its responses to her QWRs were 

inadequate and that it failed to conduct a reasonable search for the 

Bank of America materials or provide sufficient notice that it did 

not have the information. For the reasons we explain below, we 

hold that Rakestraw failed to establish that Nationstar violated 

RESPA and, accordingly, we affirm.5

A. Nationstar’s Responses Were Adequate Under RESPA 

Here, the undisputed evidence shows that Nationstar’s 

responses to Rakestraw’s four QWRs complied with the applicable

statutory and regulatory requirements. In response to a series of

repetitive QWRs, Nationstar provided Rakestraw with the 

information she requested (with the exception of the unavailable 

information discussed below)—including transaction histories

with no applicability to the borrower’s QWR, along with documents and 

information she had not requested. See 822 F.3d 1241 at 1244–45 (11th Cir. 

2016). By contrast, in Bates v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, we held that a 

servicer’s response complied with RESPA (despite the borrower’s “confusion” 

with it) because the response explained why certain payments were returned 

to the borrower and not applied to the loan—which was exactly what the 

borrower inquired about in her QWR. See 768 F.3d 1126, 1129, 1134–35 (11th 

Cir. 2014). 

5 Because Rakestraw has failed to show any dispute of fact as to whether 

Nationstar violated RESPA, we do not reach the issue of actual or statutory 

damages. 

USCA11 Case: 21-12850 Date Filed: 03/04/2022 Page: 12 of 15
21-12850 Opinion of the Court 13

covering the entire life of the loan. Moreover, all of Nationstar’s 

responses provided the contact information of a person who could 

assist Rakestraw in the future. In doing so, Nationstar complied 

with RESPA’s response obligations. See 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(2)(C); 

12 C.F.R. § 1024.36(a),(d)(1) (requiring servicers in receipt of a 

request for information to “[p]rovid[e] the borrower with the 

requested information and contact information, including a 

telephone number, for further assistance in writing”). 

The core of Rakestraw’s argument that Nationstar’s 

responses did not satisfy RESPA is that the transaction histories 

Nationstar gave her are “incomprehensible.” We are unpersuaded

for several reasons. First, to the extent Rakestraw was struggling 

to understand the account histories for the period during which 

Nationstar serviced the loans, she kept that to herself until 

submitting the fourth QWR, at which point she requested a 

“legible and comprehensible breakdown of the account history or 

a code sheet.” In response, Nationstar sent Rakestraw a code sheet 

for Nationstar’s transaction history, thereby providing her with the 

requested information. 

Second, Rakestraw points to nothing in the record 

demonstrating that the transaction histories were actually 

“incomprehensible.” By contrast, Nationstar points us to the 

“misc. posting” entries on the Bank of America account histories 

(something Rakestraw notes was specifically “incomprehensible”), 

which are far from “incomprehensible” and show how the charges 

were being applied to the loan. Borrower satisfaction is not the 

standard by which we measure a servicer’s response to a request 

for information, and Rakestraw’s confusion does not equate to a 

USCA11 Case: 21-12850 Date Filed: 03/04/2022 Page: 13 of 15
14 Opinion of the Court 21-12850

RESPA violation.6 See Bates v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, 768 

F.3d 1126, 1135 (11th Cir. 2014) (holding that a servicer’s response 

to a QWR, albeit one identifying an error and not merely 

requesting information, complied with RESPA because it was 

responsive to the inquiry even though the borrower “was confused 

and/or unsatisfied” with the response). 

B. Nationstar Conducted a Reasonable Search and Gave 

Proper Written Notice to Rakestraw 

As discussed previously, RESPA requires a servicer to 

inform the borrower in writing that it does not have the requested 

information, the basis for that determination, and contact 

information for a representative. See 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(2)(C); 12 

C.F.R. § 1024.36(d)(1). 

In response to Rakestraw’s request for a more legible 

version of the Bank of America transaction histories and a code 

sheet for those histories, Nationstar told her, in writing, that it did 

not have those documents and could not attest to how the prior 

servicer treated payments on Rakestraw’s account. Like all of 

Nationstar’s responses, this one provided contract information for 

a person who could assist Rakestraw in the future. This is all 

RESPA requires. See 12 U.S.C. § 2605 (e)(2)(C); 12 C.F.R. § 

1024.36(a), (d)(2). 

 In Rakestraw’s view, however, RESPA required Nationstar 

to “investigate[] past its own file[s]” and notify her, not only that 

6 We pause to note that Nationstar included contact information for further 

assistance in each of its responses, but Rakestraw never reached out for help 

understanding the allegedly “incomprehensible” information Nationstar 

provided. Instead, she continued to send Nationstar QWRs. 

USCA11 Case: 21-12850 Date Filed: 03/04/2022 Page: 14 of 15
21-12850 Opinion of the Court 15

the requested information was unavailable to it, but also that 

“Nationstar could not obtain it and why it could not obtain it.” Yet 

Rakestraw points to no authority—from the text of the statute, its 

accompanying regulations, or cases from our Court—suggesting 

that to conduct a “reasonable search” a loan servicer must search 

beyond its own records and that the word “unavailable” really 

means “unobtainable.” See 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(2)(C)(i). And as 

discussed previously, RESPA places the burden on Rakestraw to 

show that Nationstar did not conduct a reasonable search—not on 

Nationstar to prove that its search was reasonable. Renfroe, 822 

F.3d at 1244. 

Accordingly, Rakestraw has failed to show that Nationstar 

conducted an unreasonable search or improperly notified her that 

it did not have the requested information.

* * *

The district court did not err when it granted summary 

judgment in favor of Nationstar. Accordingly, we affirm. 

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 21-12850 Date Filed: 03/04/2022 Page: 15 of 15