[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 17

- 12171 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 3:16

- cv - 00050

- CDL

BETH ANN VAN HOOSE, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus ATHENS FIRST BANK AND TRUST, a division of Synovus Bank, Synovus Mortgage and its agents, employees, and attorneys, THOMPSON O'BRIEN KEMP AND NASUTI PC, Defendants

- Appellees.

________________________ Appeal from the United State s District Court for the Middle District of Georgia

________________________ (August 23, 2018) Before WILSON , ROSENBAUM, and JULIE CARNES , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 17-12171 Date Filed: 08/23/2018 Page: 1 of 42 Beth Ann Van Hoose appeals the district court’s dismissal of her pro se civil complaint for failure to s tate a claim against Athens First Bank and Trus t, a division of Synovus Bank (Athens First ), under the Real Estate Se ttlement Procedures Act (RESPA ) and the Truth in Lending Act (TILA ), and for failure to state a claim against Athens First’s attorneys, Tho mpson, O’Brien, Kemp & Nasuti, P.C. (Thompson O’Brien ), under the Fair Debt C ollection Practices Act (FDCPA ). On appeal, Van Hoose argues that the district court erred when it: determined that she failed to allege actual and statutory damages under RESPA; concluded that TILA did not apply to the proposed note that Athens First sent her in 2014; concluded that she did not adequately allege that she req uested a payoff statement; and dismissed her FDCPA claims based on a finding that she was in default on the loan and in consideration of a state court decision granting summary judgment in favor of Athens First on her claim of wrongful foreclosure. After a careful review of the parties’ briefs and the record, we affirm. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of an amended complaint for failure to state a claim for relief. Brooks v. Warden , 800 F.3d 1295, 1300 (11th Cir. 2015). In doing so, “ we accept all factual a llegations as true and consider them in the light most favorable t o the plaintiff. ” Id. The plaintiff must plead

“ enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. ” Id. ( internal quotation marks omitted).

Case: 17-12171 Date Filed: 08/23/2018 Page: 2 of 43 RESPA imposes a duty on loan servicers to provide additional loan information to a borrower upon the borrower’ s request. See 12 U.S.C. § 2605 (e)

. RESPA also makes violators liable to individual borrowers for “any actual damages to the borrower as a result of” the servicer’s violation and “any additional damages . . . in the case of a pattern o r practice of noncompliance with the requirements of [the] section.” See id. § 2605(f)(1)(A), (B). TILA provides that “no creditor may make a residential mortgage loan unless the creditor makes a reasonable and good faith determination . . . that, at th e time the loan is consummated, the consumer has a reasonable ability to repay the loan.” 15 U.S.C. § 1639c(a)(1). TILA also requires that a loan servicer provide a payoff statement, which is a n “ accurate statement of the total outstanding balance that would be required to pay the consumer’s obligation in full as of a specified date,” upon written request from the borrower. 12 C.F.R. 1026.36(c)(3). Finally, t he FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from using “ false, deceptive, or misleading representat ion [ s ] or means in connection with the collection of any debt. ” 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. A debt collector found liable under the FDCPA shall pay “any actual damage sustained by such [ a ] person as a result of such failure,” and “such additional damages as the c ourt may allow, but not exceeding $1,0 00.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a) . In considering the amount of damages, a court should consider “the frequency and persistence of noncompliance by the debt collector,

Case: 17-12171 Date Filed: 08/23/2018 Page: 3 of 44 the nature of such noncompliance, and the extent to whic h such noncompliance was intentional.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(b)(1). We find no reversible error. First, t he district court properly dismissed Van Hoose’s RESPA claims, because she failed to allege actual or statutory damages , which is an essential element to a RESPA claim

. See Renfroe v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC , 822 F.3d 1241, 1246 (11th Cir. 2016) . She failed to allege actual damages, because she did not allege damages that she incurred as a result of Athens First’s actions, rather she only alleged damages that were a result of her defaulting on the loan. See 12 U.S.C. § 2605(f)(1)(A). She likewise failed to allege statutory damages, because she did not allege a pattern or practice of violating RESPA by Athens First. See i d. § 2605(f)(1)(B). Seco nd, t he district court properly dismissed her claims under TILA, because the 2014 proposed note

was not a loan that was “made” or “consummated,” as required by TILA , and she

never made a written request for a payoff statement. See 15 U.S.C. § 1639c(a)(1); 12 C.F.R. 1026.36(c)(3). Finally, t he district court properly dismissed her claims under the FDCPA, because Van Hoose failed to allege that Thompson O’Brien used any false, deceptive, or misleading representations or means to collect a debt.
See 15 U.S. C. § 1692 e . AFFIRMED. Case: 17-12171 Date Filed: 08/23/2018 Page: 4 of 4