11th Circuit Upholds FDCPA Violation for Expedited Mortgage Payment Fees

On February 4, 2025, the 11th Circuit issued its opinion Glover v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, addressing whether Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by charging borrowers optional fees for making expedited mortgage payments online or by phone, referred to as "Speedpay fees."

The plaintiffs, Sheryl Glover and Cathy Booze, argued that these fees were an unfair means of debt collection under 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1), which prohibits the collection of any amount unless expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law. The district court ruled in favor of Glover and Booze, finding that Ocwen was a "debt collector" under the FDCPA and that the Speedpay fees were unauthorized charges imposed in connection with debt collection.

The Eleventh Circuit upheld the district court's ruling, affirming that Ocwen was acting as a "debt collector" under the FDCPA because it acquired and serviced defaulted loans, making it subject to the statute’s restrictions. The court rejected Ocwen’s argument that the Speedpay fees were separate from the debt collection process, holding that the fees were charged in connection with the collection of the debt. The court also determined that the term "any amount" in § 1692f(1) was broad and encompassed all fees, not just those incidental to the principal obligation, aligning with the Fourth Circuit’s interpretation in Alexander v. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC. Consequently, the court found that the Speedpay fees fell within the FDCPA’s prohibition on unauthorized charges.

Finally, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that Ocwen’s Speedpay fees were not "permitted by law." Ocwen contended that statutes such as the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA) allowed such fees by requiring their disclosure, but the court disagreed, noting that these statutes regulate disclosure rather than substantively authorize specific fees. The court also rejected Ocwen’s argument that the fees were lawful under state contract law, explaining that a separate agreement for payment processing does not override the FDCPA’s restrictions. Since neither the original debt agreements nor any law expressly permitted the fees, the court concluded that Ocwen violated the FDCPA and affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of Glover and Booze.

*******

Aaron Cohn practices in the Miami, Florida, office of Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial. He focuses his practice on lending and business disputes, including FDCPA and TCPA claims.