Federal Court Dismisses RESPA and FDCPA Claims in Missouri Foreclosure Case

Case Snapshot

• Case: Jaber v. Title Premier
• Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
• Case No.: 4:26 CV 309 CDP
• Judge: U.S. District Judge Catherine D. Perry
• Key Laws: Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act; Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
• Key Issues: Qualified written request under RESPA; whether the mortgage servicer acted as a debt collector under the FDCPA
• Outcome: Federal claims dismissed; court declined jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims

A federal court in Missouri has dismissed claims under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) in a lawsuit arising from an alleged foreclosure rescue scheme.

In Jaber v. Title Premier, the plaintiffs alleged that they lost title to their home and were later evicted after becoming victims of an alleged foreclosure rescue scam. They brought federal claims against their mortgage servicer under RESPA and the FDCPA, along with various state-law claims against other defendants.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted the servicer’s motion to dismiss after finding that the complaint did not sufficiently allege the elements required to support either federal claim.

Plaintiffs Alleged Foreclosure Rescue Scheme

According to the court summary, the plaintiffs alleged that they became victims of a foreclosure rescue scam that ultimately resulted in the loss of title to their property and their eviction from the home. Their complaint included claims against multiple defendants, but the federal claims addressed in the motion to dismiss focused on the plaintiffs’ mortgage servicer.

The plaintiffs alleged that the servicer violated RESPA and the FDCPA in connection with the handling of their mortgage and the events surrounding the alleged scheme.

RESPA Claim Failed Over Qualified Written Request

The court found that the plaintiffs did not adequately allege that they had sent the mortgage servicer a qualified written request, or QWR, as required for the RESPA theory they asserted.

A QWR is a written communication that can trigger certain obligations for mortgage servicers when it properly identifies the borrower and account and seeks information or correction concerning servicing. As the complaint did not sufficiently allege that such a request had been sent, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had not stated a viable RESPA claim against the servicer.

That deficiency was enough for the court to dismiss the federal RESPA claim.

FDCPA Claim Also Dismissed

The court separately found that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that the mortgage servicer was acting as a debt collector within the meaning of the FDCPA. This difference is important because the FDCPA generally applies to entities that meet the statute’s definition of a debt collector.

Without sufficient allegations establishing that the defendant fell within that definition in the circumstances presented, the plaintiffs could not proceed with their FDCPA claim.

The court therefore dismissed that claim as well.

State-Law Claims Left for Other Courts

Once the federal claims were dismissed, the case no longer presented the same basis for federal jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

As a result, the plaintiffs’ claims arising under state law were not resolved on their merits in this federal ruling. The decision instead focused on whether the complaint adequately pleaded the federal RESPA and FDCPA causes of action against the mortgage servicer.

Why the Decision Matters

The ruling underscores the importance of pleading the specific statutory elements required for federal mortgage servicing and debt collection claims.

For RESPA claims involving servicing inquiries, plaintiffs must sufficiently allege the existence of a qualifying written communication that triggers the servicer’s statutory obligations. For FDCPA claims, the complaint must also plausibly establish that the defendant meets the statutory definition of a debt collector.

In Jaber, the court found both federal theories deficient at the pleading stage, resulting in dismissal of the federal claims and leaving the remaining state-law issues outside the federal case.