Lea E. Johnson; Samantha J. Johnson v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2787
___________________________
Lea E. Johnson; Samantha J. Johnson
Plaintiffs - Appellants
v.
Freedom Mortgage Corporation
Defendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: October 21, 2025
Filed: February 2, 2026
____________
Before GRUENDER, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
KOBES, Circuit Judge.
Lea and Samantha Johnson sued Freedom Mortgage Corporation under the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681, alleging that Freedom
Mortgage provided inaccurate information about them to credit reporting agencies
and then failed to make a reasonable investigation when they complained about it.

-- 1 of 6 --

-2-
The district court1 held there was no material dispute about the report’s accuracy and
granted summary judgment to Freedom Mortgage. We affirm.
The Johnsons bought a house in Minnesota funded with a mortgage loan
which, since late 2019, has been serviced by Freedom Mortgage. They made regular
online payments. After filing for bankruptcy in March 2020, they reaffirmed the
loan, and Freedom Mortgage required them to pay by mail instead. Freedom
Mortgage’s welcome letter told the Johnsons to “make checks payable to Freedom
Mortgage Corporation (include your mortgage loan number []).” The letter
reiterated, “Be sure to include your mortgage loan number . . . on the check.” The
Johnsons’ monthly statements instructed “make your check or money order payable
to Freedom Mortgage” and “include your loan number.” Each statement included a
coupon listing the loan number.
On April 28, 2020, Lea mailed a $1,596.00 cashier’s check to Freedom
Mortgage to make her $1,595.12 mortgage payment due on May 1, 2020. Lea
testified that she included a piece of paper with the loan number in the envelope, but
the check itself did not include any identifying information beyond Samantha’s
name. Freedom Mortgage received the check but did not deposit it because it did
not know which account to credit—it had 34 customers named Samantha Johnson
and the check did not match the amount due on the Johnsons’ mortgage. Freedom
Mortgage marked the Johnsons’ payment as past due.
The Johnsons discovered the problem when they received their next
statement. They called Freedom Mortgage on May 23, 2020, telling the account
representative that they sent a money order and that it had been cashed. Neither of
these things was true, and the representative could not find the check. After the
cashier’s check was returned to the issuing bank, the Johnsons sent a new check with
1 The Honorable Katherine Menendez, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota.

-- 2 of 6 --

-3-
the loan number written on its face. The payment was applied to their account on
June 9, 2020.
Freedom Mortgage notified the credit reporting agencies of the late payment.
For months, both Lea and Samantha disputed the late payment with the reporting
agencies, claiming: “[M]y Freedom Mortgage Account is reporting late payments
on my credit report. I’ve made all of my payments on time so please remove this
information immediately.” They followed up: “I am writing you again regarding the
late payment you’re reporting for my Freedom Mortgage account. I have made all
my payments on time so please correct this information immediately.”
The reporting agencies notified Freedom Mortgage of the dispute and
forwarded the Johnsons’ dispute letters. Freedom Mortgage investigated, verified
that the May payment was more than 30 days late, and refused to make a change in
the reporting. The Johnsons sued, alleging that the report was inaccurate because
their check was mailed on time and that Freedom Mortgage failed to do a reasonable
investigation. The district court concluded that Freedom Mortgage’s report was
accurate—the payment was in fact late and the Johnsons’ first check was
nonconforming because it did not include the loan number as required by the
welcome letter’s instructions.
We review de novo the district court’s order granting summary judgment and
may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Conseco Life Ins. Co. v. Williams,
620 F.3d 902, 907 (8th Cir. 2010). Summary judgment is proper if, when viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, “there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
The FCRA places two main obligations on furnishers of information like
Freedom Mortgage. 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2. First, they are prohibited from
“furnish[ing] any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting
agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information

-- 3 of 6 --

-4-
is inaccurate.” Id. § 1681s-2(a)(1)(A). Second, where a consumer disputes the
reported information, they must “conduct an investigation with respect to the
disputed information,” report the results to the reporting agencies, and modify or
delete any inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable information uncovered. Id.
§ 1681s-2(b)(1). Only the second section includes a private cause of action. Id.
§ 1681s-2(c)–(d).
The Johnsons argue that Freedom Mortgage’s investigation was unreasonably
“cursory.” See Hinkle v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 827 F.3d 1295, 1305 (11th
Cir. 2016). We disagree. “Because a furnisher’s obligation to conduct a reasonable
investigation under § 1681s-2(b) arises when it receives a notice of dispute from a
[reporting agency], it need investigate only ‘what it learned about the nature of the
dispute from the description in the [reporting agency]’s notice of dispute.’”
Anderson v. EMC Mortg. Corp., 631 F.3d 905, 908 (8th Cir. 2011) (citations
omitted). “[A] more limited investigation may be appropriate when [reporting
agencies] provide the furnisher with vague or cursory information about a
consumer’s dispute.” Chiang v. Verizon New England Inc., 595 F.3d 26, 38 (1st Cir.
2010).
The dispute letters here were conclusory and short, saying only that the
Johnsons “made all [their] payments on time.” They did not explain the issue with
the first check or their conversation with the account representative. In response,
Freedom Mortgage investigated the account history, account notes, and payment
history.2 This was more than the furnisher in Hinkle, which “did not attempt to
2 Freedom Mortgage reviewed the account notes from the Johnsons’ May 23
call. The notes reflect the Johnsons’ claim that they had paid their mortgage with a
money order that Freedom Mortgage had cashed. Given their inaccurate explanation
to the account representative, neither the call nor the related account notes revealed
that the Johnsons’ dispute was “bona fide.” Hrebal v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 385
F. Supp. 3d 849, 853, 851 (D. Minn. 2019) (reasonable investigation would have
revealed, among other things, “a legitimate and longstanding ‘proof of claim
error’”). So the call is not evidence of an inaccurate or incomplete late-payment
report.

-- 4 of 6 --

-5-
consult account-level documentation.” 827 F.3d at 1305. Freedom Mortgage
confirmed the payment due May 1 was credited on June 9, “determined that the
reported account status was accurate, and verified that information to the [reporting
agencies].” Anderson, 631 F.3d at 909. Because “[i]ts duties as a furnisher of
information under the FCRA required no more,” id., no jury could find that the
investigation was unreasonable. See Edeh v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 413 F.
App’x 925, 926–27 (8th Cir. 2011) (unpublished) (per curiam) (with little
information in the disputes, it was enough for the furnisher “to check the information
it received . . . to verify [the consumer] was the one who owed [the debt] and how
much he owed”); see also Westra v. Credit Control of Pinellas, 409 F.3d 825, 827
(7th Cir. 2005) (reasonableness of investigation is factual question normally
reserved for trial, but summary judgment is proper when reasonableness is beyond
question).
The Johnsons want us to adopt the heightened standard of accuracy used in
some circuits and find that Freedom Mortgage’s report was materially misleading,
even if it was technically accurate. See, e.g., Saunders v. Branch Banking & Tr. Co.
of Va., 526 F.3d 142, 148 (4th Cir. 2008) (“[A] consumer report that contains
technically accurate information may be deemed ‘inaccurate’ if the statement is
presented in such a way that it creates a misleading impression.”); Gorman v.
Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1163 (9th Cir. 2009) (“It is the failure to
report a bona fide dispute, a dispute that could materially alter how the reported debt
is understood, that gives rise to a furnisher’s liability under § 1681s-2(b).”). But
because Freedom Mortgage’s reasonable investigation did not find evidence that the
report was inaccurate or incomplete under either test, we do not need to decide
whether to adopt a heightened accuracy standard. We likewise do not need to
address the argument that the district court erred by looking to § 1681s-2(a) for the
standard of accuracy because the reasonable investigation did not find the alleged
deficiency.
The Johnsons finally argue that the payment instructions in the welcome letter
were ambiguous, creating a genuine dispute of material fact about whether they

-- 5 of 6 --

-6-
complied with Freedom Mortgage’s directions when they sent the first check. They
did not make this argument to the district court, and so we will not consider it for the
first time on appeal. See Sanzone v. Mercy Health, 954 F.3d 1031, 1045–46 (8th
Cir. 2020).
Affirmed.
______________________________

-- 6 of 6 --