Opinion ID: 2721577
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Federal Claims: DIDMCA/NHA, FDCPA

Text: The term “federally related mortgage loan,” refers to any loan that is: (i) a refinance loan, (ii) insured or made by any agency of the Federal Government, (iii) intended to be sold to the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Government National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation; or (iv) made by a creditor who makes or invests in residential real estate loans aggregating more than $1,000,000 per year. 12 U.S.C. § 2602. Federally related mortgages are subject to provisions and protections of various federal housing laws. Here, the district court properly concluded that Fitzpatrick failed to state a claim under federal law. Fitzpatrick did not adequately allege a basis for invoking 4 Case: 14-10051 Date Filed: 08/28/2014 Page: 5 of 10 DIDMCA or NHA because his complaint in this respect merely asserted that his loan was a “federally related mortgage loan,” but did not further allege how the loan met the definition under 12 U.S.C. § 2602. The district court was not required to accept that conclusory label as true. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. Thus, we affirm on the dismissal of Fitzpatrick’s DIDMCA/NHA and FDCPA claims. Fitzpatrick’s FDCPA claim also fails. An action under the FDCPA must be brought “within one year from the date on which the violation occurs.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d). On appeal, Fitzpatrick fails to offer any argument as to the district court’s conclusion that his FDCPA claim was time-barred, the sole basis for dismissal. Therefore, he has abandoned the claim. See Timson, 518 F.3d at 874. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of his federal claims. B. State-law Claims: Wrongful Foreclosure and Trespass To state a claim for wrongful foreclosure under Georgia law, a plaintiff must allege, inter alia, that the foreclosing party breached a legal duty that it owed to the plaintiff. DeGolyer v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 662 S.E.2d 141, 147 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008). In Georgia, a foreclosing party need only send a debtor one notice, at least 30 days in advance of a foreclosure sale, of the initiation of foreclosure proceedings. See O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162.2. The notice must contain the name and 5 Case: 14-10051 Date Filed: 08/28/2014 Page: 6 of 10 contact information of the “individual or entity [with] full authority to negotiate, amend, and modify all terms of the mortgage with the debtor.” Id. To state a claim for trespass in Georgia, a plaintiff must allege facts showing an unlawful interference with his right to enjoy his private property. See Pope v. Pulte Home Corp., 539 S.E.2d 842, 843 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000). Further, a party seeking to exercise a power of sale in a security deed in Georgia is not required to hold the promissory note as proof of the debt in addition to the security deed. You v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 743 S.E.2d 428, 433–34 (Ga. 2013) (emphasis added). The district court properly dismissed Fitzpatrick’s state-law claims. The district court properly concluded that Fitzpatrick failed to state a claim for wrongful foreclosure under § 44-14-162.2 because none of the deficiencies he identified with respect to the October 17 Notice—the failure to identify the Loan Reference Number, the secured creditor, the servicer of the loan, or the holder of the promissory note and security deed—are required under the statute. See O.C.G.A. §44-14-162.2. Next, the district court properly dismissed Fitzpatrick’s trespass claim because he failed to allege any fact showing that BNYM’s interference with the property was unlawful. Specifically, none of the notice deficiencies he identified render a foreclosure invalid, and his assertion that BNYM needed the promissory note in addition to the security deed to initiate the foreclosure proceedings fails 6 Case: 14-10051 Date Filed: 08/28/2014 Page: 7 of 10 under You. See You, 743 S.E.2d at 433–34. Thus, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Fitzpatrick’s state-law claims.