Leonard P. Machulas v. Shell Point Mortgage Company

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: June 9, 2026
• Docket: 25-13286
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-13286 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 06/09/2026 Page: 1 of 5

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-13286 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

LEONARD P. MACHULAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

SHELL POINT MORTGAGE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 4:24-cv-00174-JRH-BKE ____________________

Before LUCK, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Leonard Machulas appeals pro se from the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his complaint alleging that Shell Point Mortgage Company, LLC violated 15 U.S.C. §§ 1639g and 1639f by USCA11 Case: 25-13286 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 06/09/2026 Page: 2 of 5

2 Opinion of the Court 25-13286

increasing the balance on a mortgage after he paid the full balance, double charging him fees, and refusing to provide him with mort- gage statements. Machulas argues that the district court dismissed his complaint because the court could not read or understand it, and that Shell Point failed to show that an error was made. After careful review, we affirm. I.

Machulas filed a handwritten complaint against Shell Point, alleging that the company violated 15 U.S.C. §§ 1639g and 1639f by increasing the balance on a mortgage after he paid it in full, double charging him for late fees, failing to credit extra payments, and re- fusing to provide him with requested information. He attached a statement of facts to his complaint, alleging that he had agreed to take over the mortgage payments on a trailer house owned by someone else in exchange for the title. Machulas learned the balance amount from the mortgage lender, Shell Point. He went to his bank to pay off the mortgage’s balance and learned that Shell Point had increased the balance. He paid the balance but later learned that his payment was late, resulting in a late fee. Machulas also attached to his complaint copies of corre- spondence with Shell Point, in which Shell Point stated that it never received his extra payments and refused to provide him with mortgage statements or account information because he was not the borrower. Machulas also attached copies of checks he sent to Shell Point, some of which he alleged that Shell Point cashed. USCA11 Case: 25-13286 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 06/09/2026 Page: 3 of 5

25-13286 Opinion of the Court 3

Shell Point moved to dismiss Machulas’s complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that Machulas failed to allege a basis for federal question jurisdiction be- cause his references to sections 1639g and 1639f were barebones. Shell Point added that the district court lacked diversity jurisdiction because Machulas alleged an insufficient amount in controversy. Shell Point also argued that Machulas’s handwritten complaint failed to state a claim because it was illegible, indecipherable, and did not allow for any response. Moreover, Shell Point argued, Ma- chulas was not a borrower on a loan that Shell Point serviced. Fi- nally, Shell Point argued that Machulas did not properly serve it with process. Machulas opposed Shell Point’s motion to dismiss, explaining that Shell Point had accepted his checks but had not sent him receipts. The district court granted Shell Point’s motion to dismiss, dismissing Machulas’s complaint with prejudice. The district court explained that it was liberally construing Machulas’s complaint as asserting claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1639g, which pertains to re- quests for payoff amounts of a home loan, and § 1639f, which per- tains to requirements for crediting of home loan payments, and de- termined that it had federal question jurisdiction. However, the district court concluded that Machulas’s complaint failed to state a claim for relief because he did not explain how his allegations cre- ated a basis for legal claims under the statutes. Machulas filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the district court denied his motion to dismiss because of his pro se USCA11 Case: 25-13286 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 06/09/2026 Page: 4 of 5

4 Opinion of the Court 25-13286

status and disability. He explained that the district court had juris- diction under “Fannie Mae” and under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1639g and 1639f, and that he stated a claim because Shell Point defrauded him and all his evidence was attached to his complaint. Shell Point op- posed Machulas’s motion for reconsideration, arguing that the dis- trict court correctly dismissed his complaint and that Machulas did not cite law or facts warranting reconsideration. The district court denied Machulas’s motion for reconsideration, explaining that Ma- chulas failed to provide new evidence or a change in controlling law, and that he failed to point out clear error. Machulas timely appealed the dismissal order. II.

We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and construing them in the light most favorable to the plain- tiff. Ellis v. Cartoon Network, Inc., 803 F.3d 1251, 1255 (11th Cir. 2015). III.

Machulas argues that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint because the court did not understand his paperwork or what he stated in his complaint. We disagree. First, even liberally construing Machulas’s pro se brief, his appeal does not challenge the bases of the district court’s dismissal order. “[I]ssues not briefed on appeal” by pro se litigants “are deemed abandoned.” Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th USCA11 Case: 25-13286 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 06/09/2026 Page: 5 of 5

25-13286 Opinion of the Court 5

Cir. 2008). To properly brief issues on appeal, a pro se litigant must “‘plainly and prominently’” raise them, “‘for instance by devoting a discrete section of his argument’” to them. Sapuppo v. Allstate Flo- ridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting Cole v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 712 F.3d 517, 530 (11th Cir. 2013)). Machulas did not devote any portion of his argument to challenging the district court’s conclusion that he failed to state a claim. The record does not support his argument that the district court failed to under- stand his claim or read his handwriting. Second, having reviewed the record, we agree with the dis- trict court that Machulas failed to state a claim under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1639g and 1639f. Section 1639g provides that “[a] creditor or ser- vicer of a home loan shall send an accurate payoff balance within a reasonable time, but in no case more than 7 business days, after the receipt of a written request for such balance from or on behalf of the borrower.” 15 U.S.C. § 1639g. Section 1639f relates to the cred- iting of payments “to the consumer’s loan account.” See 15 U.S.C. § 1639f(a). But, based on the complaint and the documents at- tached to it, Machulas was never a party to the loan that Shell Point serviced. IV.

For the reasons discussed, we AFFIRM.