FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T J ANUARY 25, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 65 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 2 :0 8- cv -1 44 19 -DLG STEPHEN LUSTIG,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us BEAR STEARNS RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J an ua ry 25 , 20 11 )
Befo re HULL, MARTIN an d C OX, Circ ui t J ud ge s.
PER CURI AM:
St ep he n Lus ti g fil ed su it in di st ric t co ur t ag ai ns t Bea r St earn s Res id en ti al

Mor tga ge Co rp orat io n (“ Bea r St earn s” ) fo r de cl arat or y rel ie f, vi ola tio ns of the Fl or ida Decep ti ve an d Unf

ai r Trad e Prac ti ces Act (“ FDUTPA”), reci ss io n, frau du le ntin du cem en t, an d bre ach of co nt ract

. Lus ti g c on te nd s t ha t Be ar St earn s m is le d h im 1
wit h res pe ct to th e in te res t rat e on hi s Adju st ab le Rat e Pro m is so ry Not e (“ th e Not e”),

an d hi s m on th ly pa y m en t. On ap pe al , Lus ti g co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in

gr an ti ng su m

m ary jud gm en t t o B ear S te arn s.
The su bjec t of th is li ti ga ti on is a $7 20 ,00 0 pr om i s so ry no te pa y ab le to Bea r
St earn s ex ecu te d in Aug us t 20 06 by Lu st ig th ro ug h hi s at to rn ey -in -fac t, W il li am J.
Pro vo st , fo r t h e p u r c ha se of a ho m e lo cat ed in Fo rt Pi erce , Fl or id a. Lus ti g al le ge s
th at th e no te is in he ren tl y an d p a te nt ly de cep ti ve
. Lus ti g al so al le ge s th at Bea r
St earn s de cei ve d hi m by le ad in g hi m to be li ev e th at th e m on th ly m in im um pa y m en t
of $ 2 8 5 0 ap pl ie d to bo th pr in ci pa l an d in te res t or at a m in im um co ve red th e en ti re

am ou nt of i nt eres t d ue on th e Not e.
The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t to Bea r St earn s. The co ur t fo un d
th at th e do cu m en ts ex ecu te d by Lus ti g, th ro ug h hi s at to rn ey -in -fac t, Pro vo st , cl earl y
di sc lo se d ev e ry ris k as so ci at ed wit h th e lo an , in cl ud in g th e fact th at m ak in g th e

m in im um pa y m en t wo ul d re su lt in ne ga ti ve am or ti zat io n. Lu st ig ap pe al s.
Lus ti g co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d: (1 ) in no t add res si ng th e is su e of
whe th er an in accu rat e Trut h- in -Len di ng di sc lo su re st at em en t su pp or ts a fin di ng th at
FDUTPA was vi ol at ed ; (2 ) in de te rm in in g th at th e da m ag es cl ai m ed by Lus ti g in th e

The bre ach of

contra ct claim wa s dismis sed, and is not at issue on this appea l. 1

2FDUTPA cl ai m were co ns eq ue nt ia l da m ag es –n ot act ua l da m ag es ; (3 ) in de te rm in in g

th at th e reco rd di d no t crea te a ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact ; an d (4 ) in fin di ng th at
Pro vo st ha d a reas on ab le op po rtu ni ty to le arn , at cl os in g, th e es se nt ia l te rm s of th e
Not e. W e h av e co ns id ered each of t he se co nt en ti on s, an d fi nd th em wit ho ut m eri t.
The co nt en ti on th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in no t ad dr es si ng Lus ti g’s Trut h- in

Len di ng arg um en t is m eri tl es s be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at Lus ti g ha d fai le d

to pr es en t an y ev id en ce to es ta bl is h t h a t a d ecep ti ve or un fai r pr act ic e ha d be en

co m m it te d by Bea r St earn s (R

. 3

- 8 5 a t 7 ) an d a de cep ti ve or un fai r pr act ic e is an

es se nt ia l el em en t of a FDUTPA cl ai m
. And , th e arg um en t th at t h e c o u r t erre d in 2
de ci di ng th at th e da m ag es cl ai m ed un de r FDUTPA were co ns eq ue nt ia l is irr el ev an t gi ve n ou r co nc lu si on th at th e co ur t fo un d no FDUTPA vi ol at io n. “ A co ns um er cl ai m
fo r da m ag es un de r FDUTPA ha s th ree el em en ts : (1 ) a de cep ti ve act or un fai r pr act ic e; (2 ) cau sa ti on ; an d (3 ) act ua l da mages .” Ci ty Fir st Mor tg . C or

p. v. Bar to n , 9 88 So

. 2d 82 , 86 (Fl a. 4t h DCA 20 08 ) (q uo ti ng Rol li ns , In c. v. But la nd , 95 1 So

. 2d 86 0, 86 9 (Fl a. 2d DCA 20 06 ). Bec au se Lus ti g fai le d to pr ov e th e fir st el em en t, hi s cl ai m fai le d
wit ho ut req ui rin g t he di st ric t co ur t t o a dd res s t he rem ai ni ng ele m en ts

.

We need not, a

nd do not, decide w hether a Truth- in-L ending violation may ever form the 2 basis of a F DUTPA cla im.
3As t o Lus ti g’s co nt en ti on s t ha t t he reco rd crea te d a ge nu in e is su e o f m at eri al

fact , an d th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by it s fin di ng t h a t Pro vo st ha d no reas on ab le

op po rtu ni ty to le arn , at cl os in g, th e es se nt ia l te rm s of th e no te , th es e co nt en ti on s were

co ns id ered by th e di st ric t co ur t. (R.3 -8 5.) And , we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s

co nc lu si on s were well -rea so ne d an d co rrec t. It is cl ear f r om th e reco rd th at th e
do cu m en ts si gn ed in co nju nc ti on wit h th e ex ecu ti on of th e Not e ex pr es sl y st at ed th at

a m on th ly p ay m en t of on ly $ 28 50 , t he m in im um pa y m en t, wou ld res ul t i n n eg at iv e

am or ti zat io n. Co ns eq ue nt ly, we fin d m eri tl es s Lus ti g’s co nt en ti on s th at Bea r St earn s

act ed un fai rly or d ecep ti ve ly.
AFFIR MED.

4