Filed: Jan. 15, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 14-13050 Date Filed: 01/15/2015 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 14-13050 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 3:14-cv-00016-HLA-JBT LESTER MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (January 15, 2015) Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Plaintiff Lester Muhammad ap
Summary: Case: 14-13050 Date Filed: 01/15/2015 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 14-13050 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 3:14-cv-00016-HLA-JBT LESTER MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (January 15, 2015) Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Plaintiff Lester Muhammad app..
More
Case: 14-13050 Date Filed: 01/15/2015 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-13050
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:14-cv-00016-HLA-JBT
LESTER MUHAMMAD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CITIMORTGAGE, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(January 15, 2015)
Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff Lester Muhammad appeals the dismissal of his fraud complaint
against defendant CitiMortgage, Inc. Plaintiff argues on appeal that the district
Case: 14-13050 Date Filed: 01/15/2015 Page: 2 of 7
court erred in dismissing his fraud claim on the ground that it was barred by the
statute of limitations. After careful review, we affirm.
I. Background
This is a legal action brought by an individual whose real property loan, now
paid off, was once serviced by defendant CitiMortgage. Although Plaintiff has no
ongoing relationship with CitiMortgage--he paid off his loan over two years ago
and a release of the mortgage has been filed in the appropriate county courthouse--
he alleges fraud by CitiMortgage, asserting that the latter may not have had the
authority to service his loan. He seeks a declaratory judgment directing
CitiMortgage to provide him with the original note he signed and he also sues for
damages based on the emotional distress he has suffered as a result of his concerns.
The factual allegations are as follows.
In a December 9, 2004 letter, CitiMortgage notified Plaintiff that, due to a
merger, it was becoming the servicer of Plaintiff’s mortgage loan and that future
payments should be sent to CitiMortgage. Plaintiff apparently articulated no
objection and began sending his monthly payments to CitiMortgage. In 2006, after
Plaintiff had problems with CitiMortgage improperly assessing late fees, Plaintiff
called CitiMortgage to inquire about these fees. During this call, Plaintiff told the
agent that he did not remember seeing CitiMortgage at the table when he signed
his paperwork at the closing, questioned whether “CitiMortgage ha[d] its
2
Case: 14-13050 Date Filed: 01/15/2015 Page: 3 of 7
documents,” and asked to inspect the original mortgage documents. CitiMortgage
sent Plaintiff a copy of his mortgage note. Apparently satisfied, Plaintiff continued
to make mortgage payments to CitiMortgage and, in November 2012, he was
released from his mortgage after paying it off.
On January 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against CitiMortgage.
In his amended complaint, Plaintiff alleged that CitiMortgage defrauded him by
“falsely stat[ing] and/or falsely represent[ing] that it was the servicer of [his] loan.”
Plaintiff contended that, because CitiMortgage had never provided him with proof
that it had a right to enforce his mortgage loan, he had no assurance that another
creditor would not demand payment from him. As noted above, Plaintiff seeks a
declaratory judgment, as well as punitive and actual damages.
CitiMortgage moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), alleging that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the applicable
statute of limitations and that he had failed to state a claim upon which relief could
be granted. The district court granted CitiMortgage’s motion on the ground that
Plaintiff’s fraud claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff has now
appealed the district court’s dismissal of his action.
II. Discussion
We review de novo the district court’s grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss, accepting the complaint’s factual allegations as true and construing them
3
Case: 14-13050 Date Filed: 01/15/2015 Page: 4 of 7
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Glover v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 459 F.3d
1304, 1308 (11th Cir. 2006). We also review de novo the district court’s
interpretation and application of the statute of limitations. Ctr. for Biological
Diversity v. Hamilton,
453 F.3d 1331, 1334 (11th Cir. 2006).
Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) on statute of limitations grounds is
appropriate only where it is apparent on the face of the complaint that the claim is
time barred. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs & Trainmen Gen. Comm. of Adjustment
CSX Transp. N. Lines v. CSX Transp., Inc., 522 F.3d 1190, 1194 (11th Cir. 2008).
When ruling on a motion to dismiss, courts are limited to considering the pleadings
and any attached exhibits. Grossman v. Nationsbank, N.A.,
225 F.3d 1228, 1231
(11th Cir. 2000).
In a diversity action, federal courts apply the appropriate state’s statute of
limitations. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. City of Claxton, Ga., 720 F.2d 1230,
1232 (11th Cir. 1983). Under Florida law, the statute of limitations for fraud
actions is four years. Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(j). The limitations period begins to run
from the time the facts giving rise to the cause of action were discovered or should
have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence.
Id. § 95.031(2)(a).
Here, the district court correctly concluded that Plaintiff’s claim was barred
by Florida’s four-year statute of limitations for fraud claims. The elements of a
claim for fraud under Florida law are: “(1) a false statement concerning a material
4
Case: 14-13050 Date Filed: 01/15/2015 Page: 5 of 7
fact; (2) knowledge by the person making the statement that the representation is
false; (3) the intent by the person making the statement that the representation will
induce another to act on it; and (4) reliance on the representation to the injury of
the other party.” Lance v. Wade, 457 So. 2d 1008, 1011 (Fla. 1984). Plaintiff’s
fraud claim is based on CitiMortgage’s allegedly false statement that it was the
servicer of Plaintiff’s mortgage, which statement was made in the December 9,
2004 letter from CitiMortgage notifying Plaintiff that CitiMortgage was becoming
the servicer of his mortgage. Yet, as the district court concluded, even assuming
that this 2004 letter contained false representations, those representations were
made nearly ten years before Plaintiff filed his complaint in January 2014. A ten-
year delay in filing a legal action greatly exceeds Florida’s four-year statute of
limitations.
Plaintiff contends, however, that he did not discover that CitiMortgage’s
claim of authority to service his loan was false until CitiMortgage failed to return
his original note after he repaid the loan in November, 2012. 1 Yet, as noted above,
the statute of limitations began to run when Plaintiff should have discovered the
basis for his claim, had he exercised due diligence. See Fla. Stat. § 95.031(2)(a).
And accepting as true all of Plaintiff’s allegations, the basis for his fraud claim
1
Strictly speaking, Plaintiff has still not “discovered” that CitiMortgage made any false
statement concerning its status as servicer of Plaintiff’s loan. He has merely discovered that
CitiMortgage failed to give him back his original note.
5
Case: 14-13050 Date Filed: 01/15/2015 Page: 6 of 7
could have arguably been discovered in 2004, when CitiMortgage indicated its
status as the new servicer, and certainly could have been discovered in 2006 if
Plaintiff had exercised due diligence. That is, Plaintiff alleges in his amended
complaint that in 2006 he asked CitiMortgage to show him the original
documentation for his account. Plaintiff did so because CitiMortgage had not been
present at the original loan closing and Plaintiff wished to make sure that it had the
appropriate documents. In response, CitiMortgage provided Plaintiff with a copy
of his note as proof of its right to collect his mortgage payments. If it was
significant to Plaintiff that CitiMortgage only possessed a copy of the note, and not
the original, he was alerted to that fact in 2006.
In addition, Plaintiff’s argument here--that CitiMortgage’s failure to give
him back his original note in 2012 when he paid off the mortgage aroused his
suspicions as to the former’s status--appears to be a red herring. In reality,
Plaintiff complains that CitiMortgage was not entitled to collect on the note
without showing a valid assignment to it from the original party to the note or its
assignees. Yet, because Plaintiff was aware throughout his relationship with
CitiMortgage that the latter was not an original party to the note, he would have
also been on notice of the need to confirm that any assignment to it had been
proper. As he alleges in his amended complaint, “Plaintiff repeatedly inform[ed]
CitiMortgage, that if you are not party to a note, and cannot show a valid
6
Case: 14-13050 Date Filed: 01/15/2015 Page: 7 of 7
assignment via a showing of unbroken chain of title, [CitiMortgage] had no
entitlement to collect from Plaintiff.”
In short, Plaintiff has identified no information that he purportedly
discovered after January 2010 (four years before he filed this action) of which he
was not already aware well before that time. 2 Accordingly, the district court did
not err in dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint as time barred.
AFFIRMED.
2
On appeal, Plaintiff also argues that pursuant to the Fraud Enforcement Recovery Act
of 2009, 18 U.S.C. § 20, the applicable statute of limitations is ten years. Because he is raising
this argument for the first time on appeal, we do not consider this argument. See Access Now,
Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004) (holding that issues not raised in
the district court, but raised for the first time on appeal, will not be considered). Likewise, we do
not consider Plaintiff’s argument that CitiMortgage made a false representation to him when it
provided him with a copy of his mortgage note upon repayment, in lieu of the original note,
because it is also raised for the first time on appeal.
7
