Court Opinion

ID: 9353616
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-12 15:00:52.839073+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:09:41.034712
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-13474    Document: 53-1     Date Filed: 01/12/2023   Page: 1 of 5

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 21-13474
                          ____________________

       SHEILA R. MUNOZ,
       RAYMOND MUNOZ,
                                                   Plaintiffs-Appellants,
       versus
       CITIMORTGAGE, INC.,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 8:20-cv-02311-VMC-AEP
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-13474        Document: 53-1        Date Filed: 01/12/2023       Page: 2 of 5

       2                         Opinion of the Court                    21-13474

       Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Sheila R. Munoz and Raymond Munoz jointly sued
       CitiMortgage, Inc. alleging multiple violations of the Real Estate
       Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2605. See D.E.
       45. According to the Munozes, CitiMortgage violated § 2605(e)
       and the rules implementing RESPA, see 12 C.F.R. §§ 1024.35 and
       1024.36, by failing to timely and adequately respond to their Qual-
       ified Written Requests (“QWRs”), which set out multiple requests
       for information and asserted notices of errors regarding the servic-
       ing of their mortgage. See D.E. 45 at 8–16. The district court
       granted summary judgment in favor of CitiMortgage and denied
       the Munozes’ partial motion for summary judgment on two inde-
       pendent grounds: (1) CitiMortgage provided an adequate response
       to the QWR; and (2) the Munozes failed to establish damages. See
       D.E. 72.
             Only Ms. Munoz appeals the district court’s judgment. Be-
       cause we have held that damages are an essential element of a
       RESPA claim and Ms. Munoz does not challenge on appeal the dis-
       trict court’s ruling on damages, we affirm.1

       1
        As we write for the parties, we assume their familiarity with the record and
       set out only what is necessary to explain our decision.
USCA11 Case: 21-13474      Document: 53-1      Date Filed: 01/12/2023     Page: 3 of 5

       21-13474                Opinion of the Court                         3

               It is well settled that “[w]hen an appellant fails to challenge
       properly on appeal one of the grounds on which the district court
       based its judgment, he is deemed to have abandoned any challenge
       of that ground.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d
       678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014). That means that to obtain “reversal of a
       district court judgment that is based on multiple, independent
       grounds, an appellant must convince us that every stated ground
       for the judgment against him is incorrect.” Id. Passing references
       to an issue in a brief, such as “[s]imply stating that an issue exists,
       without further argument or discussion, isn’t enough.” Dear v. Q
       Club Hotel, LLC, 933 F.3d 1286, 1299 (11th Cir. 2019) (citation and
       internal quotation marks omitted). See also Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at
       681 (“[A]n appellant abandons a claim when he either makes only
       passing references to it or raises it in a perfunctory manner without
       supporting arguments and authority.”).
               We have held that damages are an essential element of a
       RESPA claim. See Renfroe v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 822 F.3d
       1241, 1246 (11th Cir. 2016) (“We join our sister Circuits in recog-
       nizing that damages are an essential element in pleading a RESPA
       claim.”). Here, the district court determined that the Munozes had
       not established damages because the alleged damages were either
       unproven, unrecoverable, or lacked the necessary causal link. See
       D.E. 72 at 26–33. Based, in part, on this failure, the district court
       granted summary judgment against the Munozes. And this failure
       alone provided the district court with a sufficient, independent ba-
       sis for granting summary judgment in favor of CitiMortgage. See
USCA11 Case: 21-13474     Document: 53-1     Date Filed: 01/12/2023    Page: 4 of 5

       4                      Opinion of the Court                21-13474

       Baez v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 709 F. App’x 979, 984
       (11th Cir. 2017) (affirming summary judgment in favor of loan ser-
       vicer where the appellant “failed to establish sufficient competent
       evidence of actual damages [ ] as a result of [the loan servicer’s]
       failure to comply with RESPA”) (internal quotation marks omit-
       ted). See also Wirtz v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 886 F.3d
       713, 720–21 (8th Cir. 2018) (reversing the district court’s grant of
       summary judgment for appellant and remanding with instructions
       to enter summary judgment for the loan servicer where appellant
       “did not present evidence of damages resulting from [the loan ser-
       vicer’s] failures to comply with RESPA”); Toone v. Wells Fargo
       Bank, N.A., 716 F.3d 516, 523 (10th Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal
       of § 2605(e) claim because complaint did not plausibly allege dam-
       ages).
               In her brief, Ms. Munoz challenges only the district court’s
       ruling on the adequacy of CitiMortgage’s responses. She does not
       provide any argument or legal support to challenge the district
       court’s independent ruling on damages. See Br. for Appellant at
       11–46. This failure is fatal to her appeal under Sapuppo, 739 F.3d
       at 680.
              Ms. Munoz states in conclusory form that “[t]he district
       court’s reasons for finding that [the] Munozes[ ] did not establish
       their damages is [ ] the result of ignoring the undisputed facts and
       misconstruing the applicable law.” Br. for Appellant at 40. But she
       does not state what “undisputed facts” and “applicable law” she
       contends are relevant to our analysis nor does she provide any legal
USCA11 Case: 21-13474         Document: 53-1         Date Filed: 01/12/2023         Page: 5 of 5

       21-13474                   Opinion of the Court                                5

       argument to convince us that the district court “misconstru[ed] the
       applicable law.” Id. Simply stating that the district court did some-
       thing wrong without any argument or legal authority to support
       the alleged error is not enough. See Dear, 933 F.3d at 1299. 2
            We affirm the district court’s order granting CitiMortgage’s
       motion for summary judgment and denying the Munozes’ partial
       motion for summary judgment.
               AFFIRMED.

       2
        As a reason for her failure to challenge the district court’s ruling on damages,
       Ms. Munoz states that the “[p]age limits don’t allow space to explain the er-
       rors.” Br. for Appellant at 40. But she certified that her brief contained only
       11,063 words. See id. at 47. This number is well under the 13,000-word limit
       provided under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Fed. R. App. P.
       32(a)(7)(B)(i).