Sarah Alhassid v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Sarah Alhassid. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-15944

Date Filed: 05/23/2017

Page: 1 of 2

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-15944
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv-21211-KMM
SARAH ALHASSID,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC,
d.b.a. Champion Mortgage,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(May 23, 2017)
Before HULL, MARCUS and CLEVENGER, ∗ Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Sarah Alhassid appeals the dismissal of her complaint against Nationstar
Mortgage, LLC (“Nationstar”), in which she alleged that Nationstar violated the
∗

Honorable Raymond C. Clevenger, United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit,
sitting by designation.

Case: 16-15944

Date Filed: 05/23/2017

Page: 2 of 2

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”), and the
Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 559.72(9) (“FCCPA”), by
sending her threatening, false letters regarding the flood insurance requirement in
her mortgage contract.

In its dismissal of the complaint, the district court

determined that the letters did not constitute “debt collection” for purposes of the
FDCPA or FCCPA. In so holding, the district court reasoned that the letters were
not sent to induce payment because they did not reference a debt, demand
payment, discuss a balance due on the underlying mortgage, or discuss ways to
settle that balance. The court also found that the letters were sent in order to
comply with a federal regulation and only warned of the consequence of not
meeting the flood insurance requirement.
On appeal, Alhassid argues that the district court failed to accept as true all
allegations in the complaint and incorrectly determined that the letters were not
related to a debt collection. She also claims that the court erred by dismissing the
complaint with prejudice without first giving her an opportunity to amend the
complaint, and by converting Nationstar’s motion to dismiss to a motion for
summary judgment without notifying the parties. After careful review of the briefs
and record, and after hearing oral argument on the case, we can discern no
reversible error on the part of the district court. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
2