Janet Beasley v. Red Rock Financial Services, 4th Cir. (2014)

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2113
JANET BEASLEY; GORDON BEASLEY,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
RED ROCK FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Anthony J. Trenga,
District Judge. (1:12-cv-01312-AJT-TRJ; 1:13-cv-00206-AJT-TRJ)
Submitted:
July 18, 2014
Before MOTZ and

Circuit Judge.
WYNN,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
and
September 9, 2014
HAMILTON,
Senior
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ernest P. Francis, ERNEST P. FRANCIS, LTD., Arlington, Virginia,

for Appellants. Virginia M. Sadler, JORDAN COYNE LLP, Fairfax,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
In this case under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act
(the FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692-1692p, the plaintiffs-appellants
raise numerous allegations of error that they contend should be
resolved in their favor.
the
record,
and
without merit.
the
Having carefully reviewed the briefs,
relevant
law,
we
conclude
that
each
is
Accordingly, we affirm.
I.
At
all
times
relevant
to
this
case,
husband
and
wife,
Gordon and Janet Beasley (the Beasleys), owned a home in the

Princeton
Virginia.
Woods
Addition
neighborhood,
located
in
Dumfries,
The home is subject to a declaration of covenants,
conditions, and restrictions administered by the Princeton Woods

Addition Homeowners Association, Inc. (the HOA).
In October
2008, the HOA, through its collection agent Reese Broome, PC,
notified the Beasleys by letter that they owed the HOA a total
of $685.00 in unpaid assessments, late fees, and legal fees.
Additionally,
the
letter
stated
that
unless
the
Beasleys
disputed the debt or made payment in full within thirty days

after
receipt
of
the
letter,
the
HOA
would
accelerate
the
Beasleys account through the end of the year and record a lien
on their home.
The Beasleys periodically continued to receive
similar letters from Reese Broome, PC, on behalf of the HOA,

2
with the last letter from Reese Broome, PC, dated March 17,
2011.
The Beasleys claim they brought their HOA account current
in 2008 and dispute any and all alleged delinquencies in their
HOA account after that time.
In 2009, the HOA revoked the
Beasleys HOA privileges, such as use of the neighborhood pool,

for failure to keep their HOA account current.
In January 2012, the HOA switched collection agents from
Reese
Broome,
Rock).
PC,
to
Red
Rock
Financial
Services,
LLC
(Red
Red Rocks first letter to the Beasleys on behalf of the
HOA is dated January 23, 2012, stating the Beasleys current HOA
account balance as $1,373.36.
the
Beasleys
chose
not
to
The letter also stated that if
pay
their
account
in
full
within
thirty days from the date of the letter, the [HOA] will refer
the matter to counsel for appropriate legal action, including
filing a Memorandum of Assessment Lien on behalf of [the HOA] in
the
Prince
William
notice.
(J.A. 445).
Red
to
Rock
the
Circuit
Clerks
Office
without
further
In a letter dated March 12, 2012, from
Beasleys
attorney,
Red
Rock
reported
the
Beasleys HOA account balance as $1,458.90.

On May, 25, 2012, the HOA filed a Memorandum of Assessment
Lien
in
Princeton
Prince
Woods
William
home,
County,
asserting
Virginia
the
on
Beasleys
the
owed
Beasleys
the
HOA
total of $1,902.82, consisting of $307.36 in unpaid assessments,

3
$23.46 in late fees and interest, and $1,572.00 in Collection

and Attorney Fees and Costs.
present
appeal,
in
(J.A. 459).
letter
dated
May
Of relevance in the
30,
2012,
Red
Rock
informed Janet Beasley that Red Rock Financial Services may

proceed with foreclosure no sooner than the 61st day from the
mailing of the Memorandum of Assessment Lien if [the] debt is
not satisfied.
(J.A. 450).
Red Rock contemporaneously sent a
separate, but identical letter to Gordon Beasley.

The Beasleys subsequently brought the present action solely
against
Red
Rock,
alleging
Red
Rocks
collection
efforts
on
behalf of the HOA violated numerous provisions of the FDCPA. 1

The
Beasleys
reasonable
sought
attorneys
total
fees,
of
$98,000.00
prejudgment
in
damages,
interest,
and
plus
costs.
Following discovery, Red Rock stipulated to violating the FDCPA

in an unspecified manner and to the Beasleys entitlement to
$1,000.00 each in statutory damages.
Shortly thereafter, the
case went to trial, with the district court granting judgment as

a
matter
of
law
in
favor
of
Red
Rock
at
the
evidence on ten out of the eleven counts alleged.
close
of
all
According to
the district court, the Beasleys had either failed to produce
The Beasleys actually filed separate, but identical

complaints, which were consolidated for discovery and trial
purposes. For ease of understanding, we treat them as being in
one action in this opinion.
sufficient evidence of any FDCPA violation in counts I through X

or
had
suffered
failed
to
produce
any
actual
sufficient
damages
as
evidence
result
of
that
any
they
had
violations
claimed in those counts.

In the lone remaining count, the Beasleys alleged that each
of them was entitled to recover for actual damages which each of
them had sustained as a result of Red Rock violating 15 U.S.C.
1692e(5), which statutory section provides:
[a] debt collector may not use any false, deceptive or
misleading representation or means in connection with
the collection of any debt.
Without limiting the
general application of the foregoing, the following
conduct is a violation of this section:
*
(5) The threat to take any action that cannot legally

be taken or that is not intended to be taken.
15 U.S.C. 1692e(5).
The district court instructed the jury as
follows with respect to the Beasleys legal theory regarding

this claim:
The Plaintiffs claim that Defendant violated this
section of the Act when it stated in its letter dated
May 30, 2012, . . . that Red Rock Financial may
proceed with foreclosure no sooner than the 61st day
from the mailing of the Memorandum of Assessment Lien
if debt is not satisfied.
The basis for this claim
is that the Memorandum of Lien did not comply with all
the legal requirements necessary to perfect and
enforce a lien and for that reason there was not filed
a valid lien.
The defendant denies that it violated
this particular section of the Act.
In order to recover on his or her claim, each
plaintiff must prove the following:
5
(1) that the defendant violated this section of

the Act;
(2) that he or she sustained actual damages as a
result of defendants violation of this section
of the Act; and
(3) the amount of damage he or she sustained as a
result of defendants violation of the Act.
(J.A. 569-70).
Additionally, the district court instructed the
jury that none of the following conduct, by itself, violated the

FDCPA:
(1)
the
fact
that
Red
Rock
sent
the
Beasleys
the
collections letters dated January 23, 2012, and March 12, 2012;
(2) the fact that Red Rock attempted to collect a disputed debt;
and
(3)
the
filing
itself
of
the
Memorandum
of
Lien.
Accordingly, the district court instructed the jury that the

Beasleys
are
not
entitled
to
recover
damages
based
on
any
emotional distress or other injuries caused by such conduct.

In a verdict form containing special interrogatories, the
jury
found
that
the
Beasleys
had
not
sustained
any
actual
damages as a result of Red Rocks violation of the FDCPA over

and above the statutory damages to which Red Rock had already
stipulated.
The district court entered judgment in favor of the
Beasleys in the amount of $1,000.00 each in statutory damages,

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692k(a)(2)(A), and otherwise in favor
of Red Rock as to all eleven counts.
The Beasleys subsequently
filed a motion, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692k(a)(3), requesting

a total of $52,120.00 in attorneys fees and $220.00 in costs.
6
After considering the motion, the district court awarded the

Beasleys a total of $5,000.00 in attorneys fees and $252.00 as
taxable
This
costs,
timely
representing
appeal
the
followed
fees
in
of
which
the
Clerk
of
Court.
the
Beasleys
allege
numerous errors by the district court below.

them all and find all to be without merit.
We have reviewed
Several are worthy
of our expressly addressing.
II.
The
Beasleys
first
contend
the
district
court
erred
by
granting Red Rocks motion for judgment as a matter of law with

respect to Counts III, IV, V, and VII, all of which allege Red
Rock violated 15 U.S.C. 1692e(2) by making false statements as
to the amount of debt the Beasleys owed the HOA.
Count III
pertained to the January 23, 2012 letter, Count IV pertained to

the March 12, 2012 letter, Count V pertained to the May 30, 2012
letter, and Count VII pertained to the May 25, 2012 Memorandum
of Lien.
We review the district courts grant of Red Rocks motion
for judgment as a matter of law de novo.
247 F.3d 125, 125 (4th Cir. 2001).
Anderson v. Russell,
Judgment as a matter of law
is appropriate on a claim [i]f a party has been fully heard on

an
issue
during
jury
trial
and
the
court
finds
that
reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary

7
basis to find for the party on that issue[.]

50(a)(1).
Fed. R. Civ. P.
Having reviewed the record, the relevant law, and
the parties briefs, we hold the district court did not err in
granting Red Rocks motion for judgment as a matter of law with
respect to Counts III, IV, V, and VII.
is
that
viewed
the
in
existence
Beasleys
the
light
of
damages
violations
at
issue
failed
most
to
present
favorable
proximately
beyond
speculation and conjecture.
The crux of the matter
the
to
sufficient
them,
caused
realm
to
by
remove
the
of
evidence,
the
alleged
impermissible
Myrick v. Prime Ins. Syndicate,
Inc., 395 F.3d 485, 489 (4th Cir. 2005) ([I]f the verdict in
favor of the non-moving party would necessarily be based upon
speculation and conjecture, judgment as a matter of law must be
entered.).
The evidence presented at trial established that,
since October 2008, the Beasleys had suffered extreme emotional

distress because of (1) the HOAs repeated claims that their HOA
account was delinquent; (2) the steady efforts by Reese Broome,
PC to collect on such alleged delinquencies; and (3) the filing
of the Memorandum of Lien on their home.
The Beasleys offered
insufficient
find
evidence
additional
emotional
proximately
caused
by
for
the
jury
distress
Red
Rocks
the
to
what,
Beasleys
violations
of
if
any,
suffered
as
the
as
FDCPA
alleged in Counts III, IV, V, and VII, i.e., by allegedly making
false statements as to the amount of debt the Beasleys owed the

HOA.
III.
Next, the Beasleys contend that Red Rocks stipulation that
it
violated
the
allegations
in
FDCPA
the
precluded
complaint
therefore,
the
district
objections
at
trial,
delinquent
HOA
account.
testimony
of
Cynthia
Red
Rock
from
pertaining
court
erred
evidence
evidence
the
person
all
liability,
and
admitting,
regarding
Such
Weiss,
in
to
disputing
over
their
allegedly
consisted
in
its
charge
of
the
of
the
Beasleys HOA account at the management company the HOA employed

to maintain its books, and such management companys resident
transaction report, (J.A. 352), pertaining to the Beasleys.
We review the trial courts rulings on the admissibility
of evidence for abuse of discretion, and we will only overturn
an evidentiary ruling that is arbitrary and irrational.
To that
end, we look at the evidence in a light most favorable to its

proponent,
maximizing
prejudicial effect.
its
probative
value
and
minimizing
its
United States v. Cole, 631 F.3d 146, 153
(4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Here,
the
district
court
did
not
act
arbitrarily
irrationally in admitting the challenged evidence.

of
Red
Rocks
stipulation
to
9
violating
the
or
Regardless
FDCPA
in
an
unspecified manner, the challenged evidence was probative on the

issue of damages.
Specifically, the challenged evidence was
probative to dispute testimony by the Beasleys to the effect

that they were shocked and in disbelief that Red Rock would send
them letters seeking to collect on the debt the HOA claimed the
Beasleys owed.
The Beasleys also specifically challenge on hearsay grounds
the district courts admission of their resident transaction
report, (J.A. 352), listing all the assessments, late fees, and
payments associated with the Beasleys HOA account.
Below, the
Beasleys specifically objected to admission of this document,

identified as Defendants Exhibit 1, as inadmissible hearsay.
Fed. R. Evid. 802.
We review the district courts admission of
this report for abuse of discretion.

The
admitting
district
the
court
challenged
did
not
resident
Cole, 631 F.3d at 153.

abuse
its
transaction
discretion
report
in
because
such document was admissible for the purpose of proving the HOA
had a long running dispute with the Beasleys over their HOA
account, which is not for the purpose of proving the truth of
the matter asserted, e.g., not for the purpose of proving the
Beasleys owed the HOA the amounts listed as delinquent in the
resident transaction report.
Because the report was admissible
for a purpose other than the truth of the matter asserted, it

falls outside the definition of hearsay set forth in Federal
10
Rule of Evidence 801(c).

running
dispute
claimed
the
The fact that the Beasleys had a long
with
the
HOA
Beasleys
owed
on
over
their
varying
HOA
amounts
account
the
(since
HOA
2008)
undercut the magnitude of the emotional distress the Beasleys

claimed
they
suffered
as
proximately
caused
by
Red
Rocks
statement in its letter dated May 30, 2012, that it may proceed
with foreclosure no sooner than the 61st day from the mailing of
the
Memorandum
of
Assessment
Lien
if
[the]
debt
is
not
satisfied. (J.A. 450).
IV.
The
courts
Beasleys
also
$5,000.00
challenge
award
of
as
inadequate
attorneys
fees
the
in
district
their
favor.
Their challenge is without merit.

[I]n
[FDCPA],
the
case
the
reasonable
of
FDCPA
attorneys
we
have
successful
authorizes
fee
U.S.C. 1692k(a)(3).
standard,
any
as
action
district
determined
to
enforce
courts
to
by
court.
the
the
award
a
15
Under the applicable abuse of discretion
the
duty
to
affirm
the
district
courts
$5,000.00 attorneys fees award if such award falls within the

district
courts
broad
discretion.
Carroll
v.
Wolpoff
&
Abramson, 53 F.3d 626, 628 (4th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation

marks omitted).
Here, the district court undertook a thorough
analysis
record
of
the
and
applicable
11
law
in
calculating
reasonable attorneys fees award in the present case, setting

forth such analysis in a lengthy written order.
To summarize,
the district court awarded the Beasleys far less in attorneys

fees than they had sought because [t]heir recovery was limited
to the amount of statutory damages that [Red Rock] had offered
shortly after suit was filed, and no reasonable assessment of
the case justified the expense to pursue actual damages.
727).
(J.A.
Given that the degree of success obtained is the most
critical
factor
in
determining
the
reasonableness
of
an
attorneys fees award, Carroll, 53 F.3d at 630, the Beasleys

have offered no persuasive argument on appeal which convinces us
that the district court abused its discretion in limiting the
Beasleys attorneys fees award to $5,000.00.
V.
For
the
reasons
stated,
we
affirm
the
judgment
below
entered upon the jurys verdict and affirm the judgment below
awarding the Beasleys $5,000.00 in attorneys fees and costs of
252.00. 2
2
We have also reviewed and find to be without merit the

Beasleys remaining assignments of reversible error pertaining
to the district courts jury instructions regarding Red Rocks
right to foreclose on the lien at issue and the bonafide error
defense as well as the district courts refusal to instruct the
jury that it could award prejudgment interest on all of the
Beasleys damages.
12
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
13

Janet Beasley v. Red Rock Financial Services, 4th Cir. (2014)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Janet Beasley v. Red Rock Financial Services, 4th Cir. (2014)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

JANET BEASLEY; GORDON BEASLEY,

July 18, 2014

Before MOTZ and

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ernest P. Francis, ERNEST P. FRANCIS, LTD., Arlington, Virginia,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Having carefully reviewed the briefs,

Gordon and Janet Beasley (the Beasleys), owned a home in the

The home is subject to a declaration of covenants,

conditions, and restrictions administered by the Princeton Woods

disputed the debt or made payment in full within thirty days

The Beasleys periodically continued to receive

similar letters from Reese Broome, PC, on behalf of the HOA,

In 2009, the HOA revoked the

Beasleys HOA privileges, such as use of the neighborhood pool,

Red Rocks first letter to the Beasleys on behalf of the

The letter also stated that if

In a letter dated March 12, 2012, from

Beasleys HOA account balance as $1,458.90.

total of $1,902.82, consisting of $307.36 in unpaid assessments,

$23.46 in late fees and interest, and $1,572.00 in Collection

informed Janet Beasley that Red Rock Financial Services may

Red Rock contemporaneously sent a

separate, but identical letter to Gordon Beasley.

behalf of the HOA violated numerous provisions of the FDCPA. 1

Following discovery, Red Rock stipulated to violating the FDCPA

Shortly thereafter, the

case went to trial, with the district court granting judgment as

evidence on ten out of the eleven counts alleged.

the district court, the Beasleys had either failed to produce

The Beasleys actually filed separate, but identical

sufficient evidence of any FDCPA violation in counts I through X

claimed in those counts.

(5) The threat to take any action that cannot legally

The district court instructed the jury as

follows with respect to the Beasleys legal theory regarding

(1) that the defendant violated this section of

Additionally, the district court instructed the

jury that none of the following conduct, by itself, violated the

Accordingly, the district court instructed the jury that the

emotional distress or other injuries caused by such conduct.

damages as a result of Red Rocks violation of the FDCPA over

The district court entered judgment in favor of the

Beasleys in the amount of $1,000.00 each in statutory damages,

The Beasleys subsequently

filed a motion, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692k(a)(3), requesting

After considering the motion, the district court awarded the

numerous errors by the district court below.

of our expressly addressing.

granting Red Rocks motion for judgment as a matter of law with

pertained to the January 23, 2012 letter, Count IV pertained to

Judgment as a matter of law

is appropriate on a claim [i]f a party has been fully heard on

reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary

basis to find for the party on that issue[.]

Having reviewed the record, the relevant law, and

speculation and conjecture.

The crux of the matter

Myrick v. Prime Ins. Syndicate,

The evidence presented at trial established that,

since October 2008, the Beasleys had suffered extreme emotional