No §1681i Liability Where Plaintiff’s Own Credit Report Refutes Inaccuracy: Exhibits Control Over Contrary Allegations in FCRA Pleadings

No §1681i Liability Where Plaintiff’s Own Credit Report Refutes Inaccuracy: Exhibits Control Over Contrary Allegations in FCRA Pleadings

Introduction

This commentary analyzes the Eleventh Circuit’s unpublished, per curiam decision in Ennis Unita McWhorter v. TransUnion LLC, et al. (No. 23-13427, Sept. 9, 2025), affirming the dismissal of a pro se plaintiff’s Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claims against Experian Information Solutions, Inc. and the denial of Rule 60(b) relief. The opinion reaffirms two practical but consequential principles:

  • For FCRA §1681i claims, a plaintiff must plausibly allege a factual inaccuracy in the consumer file; and
  • When a plaintiff attaches a credit report that contradicts their own allegations, the exhibit controls at the pleading stage, defeating otherwise conclusory assertions of inaccuracy.

The decision also underscores that willfulness under §1681n cannot stand in the absence of a plausible underlying FCRA violation, and that Rule 60(b) relief may be denied where any amendment would be futile. While “Not for Publication” and thus nonprecedential in the Eleventh Circuit, the opinion provides persuasive guidance on the interplay between FCRA pleading standards and the “exhibits govern” rule.

Background and Parties

  • Plaintiff–Appellant: Ennis Unita McWhorter (pro se)
  • Defendants: Experian Information Solutions, Inc.; TransUnion LLC; Nelnet Servicing, LLC; among others
    • On appeal, only the FCRA claims against Experian remained at issue.
  • Forum: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Non-Argument Calendar), affirming the Northern District of Georgia (D.C. No. 1:21-cv-01753-SDG).
  • Panel: Circuit Judges Abudu, Kidd, and Marcus.

Procedural Posture and Key Issues

McWhorter alleged that Experian reported inaccurate information regarding:

  • Her 2015 Westlake Financial Services auto loan—claiming Experian failed to account for a $10,521.43 insurance payment and wrongly reported a charge-off; and
  • Her Nelnet student loans—claiming they were reported in “collections” rather than in “forbearance.”

She pleaded claims under FCRA §1681i (failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation) and §1681n (willful noncompliance), and later sought relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b) on grounds including excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, and misconduct.

The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and denied Rule 60(b) relief. After an earlier Eleventh Circuit order reserved only the §§1681i and 1681n claims against Experian (and the Rule 60(b) denial as to Experian) for full consideration, the panel now affirms across the board.

Summary of the Opinion

  • FCRA §1681i Claim: Dismissal affirmed. The plaintiff must allege a factual inaccuracy and an unreasonable reinvestigation; here, the complaint’s own attachment (the Experian credit report) refuted the alleged inaccuracies regarding the Westlake loan and Nelnet loans. Because there was no inaccuracy, there was no plausible §1681i claim.
  • FCRA §1681n Willfulness: Dismissal affirmed. Without a plausible underlying §1681i violation, a willfulness claim under §1681n necessarily fails.
  • Rule 60(b): Denial affirmed. Even assuming arguendo the plaintiff’s asserted grounds (e.g., excusable neglect) might justify relief, amendment would be futile because the proposed additional allegations would not cure the §1681i/§1681n deficiencies.

Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

  • Pleading Standards:
    • Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) – A complaint needs “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Labels, conclusions, and naked assertions are insufficient.
    • Newbauer v. Carnival Corp., 26 F.4th 931 (11th Cir. 2022) – Reinforces de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals and the plausibility standard.
    • Jones v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 787 F.3d 1105 (11th Cir. 2015); Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165 (11th Cir. 2014) – Pro se pleadings are construed liberally, but courts do not rewrite deficient pleadings or substitute conclusory assertions for factual support.
  • Exhibits Control Over Contrary Allegations:
    • Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c) – Exhibits attached to a pleading are part of the pleading.
    • GSW, Inc. v. Long County, 999 F.2d 1508 (11th Cir. 1993) – Court may consider attached exhibits on a motion to dismiss.
    • Gill ex rel. K.C.R. v. Judd, 941 F.3d 504 (11th Cir. 2019); Associated Builders, Inc. v. Ala. Power Co., 505 F.2d 97 (5th Cir. 1974); Simmons v. Peavy-Welsh Lumber Co., 113 F.2d 812 (5th Cir. 1940) – When exhibits contradict general, conclusory allegations, the exhibits govern. Per Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), pre-10/1/1981 Fifth Circuit decisions bind the Eleventh Circuit.
  • FCRA §1681i Standards:
    • 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(1)(A) – When a consumer directly disputes accuracy, the CRA must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation.
    • Collins v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 775 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2015) – §1681i is violated if a CRA fails to reasonably reinvestigate upon a consumer’s notice of inaccuracy.
    • Losch v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 995 F.3d 937 (11th Cir. 2021) – A §1681i plaintiff must show a factually inaccurate file, an unreasonable reinvestigation, and damages.
    • Milgram v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 72 F.4th 1212 (11th Cir. 2023) – Confirms the reinvestigation duty and reasonableness framework under §1681i.
  • FCRA Willfulness:
    • 15 U.S.C. §1681n – Authorizes damages for willful noncompliance. Without a plausible underlying violation (here, of §1681i), a §1681n claim fails.
  • Rule 60(b) Relief and Futility:
    • Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(3) – Provides relief for mistake/excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, or fraud/misconduct.
    • Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993); Sloss Indus. Corp. v. Eurisol, 488 F.3d 922 (11th Cir. 2007) – Excusable neglect is an equitable determination under the totality of circumstances.
    • Willard v. Fairfield S. Co., 472 F.3d 817 (11th Cir. 2006) – Newly discovered evidence must likely produce a different result.
    • Frederick v. Kirby Tankships, Inc., 205 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2000) – Fraud/misconduct must be shown by clear and convincing evidence.
    • United States ex rel. Atkins v. McInteer, 470 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 2006); EEOC v. STME, LLC, 938 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2019) – Leave to amend may be denied as futile if the amended complaint would still be dismissed; futility can justify denying post-judgment relief aimed at amendment.
    • Kernel Recs. Oy v. Mosley, 694 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2012) – Appellate court may affirm on any ground supported by the record.
  • Interpretive Aids:
    • Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) – Definitions of “charge off” and “forbearance” used to interpret the status reflected on the credit report.

Legal Reasoning

The panel’s reasoning proceeds in three steps: (1) applying the pleading standard and exhibits-control doctrine; (2) assessing the elements of a §1681i claim; and (3) disposing of the §1681n and Rule 60(b) issues.

1) Exhibits Control at the Pleading Stage

The plaintiff attached her Experian credit report to her complaint. Under Rule 10(c), that report is part of the pleading. Where a plaintiff’s narrative characterizations of a document conflict with the document’s plain contents, the latter governs. Here, the report showed:

  • Westlake auto loan: An original balance of $12,108; a late payment of $10,521.43 (the insurance payout) in 2017; a charge-off recorded in March 2017; and a residual balance reflecting the insurance credit, leaving only $2,119 outstanding. This record contradicted the allegation that Experian “failed to account for” the insurance payment or reported inaccuracies about the balance flow.
  • Nelnet student loans: The loans were “open,” with scheduled payments of $0 and 0% interest from March 2020 onward—consistent with loans in forbearance (especially in the context of the COVID-19 payment pause). The report did not state the loans were in “collections,” contradicting the plaintiff’s assertion.

Given these contradictions, the complaint failed at the threshold to plausibly allege any factual inaccuracy in Experian’s reporting.

2) FCRA §1681i Requires Factual Inaccuracy and an Unreasonable Reinvestigation

The court reiterated the §1681i framework: a plaintiff must show (a) the consumer file contained a factual inaccuracy; (b) the CRA failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation after being directly notified; and (c) damages resulted. Because the exhibits disproved the alleged inaccuracies, the court did not need to reach the reinvestigation reasonableness analysis or damages. No inaccuracy, no §1681i claim.

3) §1681n Willfulness and Rule 60(b) Relief

  • Willfulness (§1681n): The willfulness claim rises or falls with the underlying §1681i claim. Absent a plausible §1681i violation, there can be no §1681n liability.
  • Rule 60(b): Even crediting the plaintiff’s assertions of excusable neglect (e.g., due to health issues), new materials (e.g., LexisNexis report), or misconduct, the proposed amendments would not cure the fundamental deficiency: her own exhibit defeats the allegation of inaccuracy. Under STME and McInteer, amendment would be futile. The court thus affirmed the denial of relief without needing to resolve each Rule 60(b) ground, relying on the “affirm on any ground” principle.

Impact and Practical Implications

  • For FCRA plaintiffs:
    • Attaching your credit report can be a double-edged sword. If the report undermines your narrative, the court will credit the exhibit over conclusory allegations.
    • Allege specific, factual inaccuracies in the file, not just disagreements over the creditor’s business decision (e.g., a charge-off) or generalized dissatisfaction with reporting. Provide precise entries, dates, amounts, and why they are false.
    • Understand the terminology: “charge-off” is an accounting status, not a forgiveness of debt, and can coexist with later credits that reduce a balance; zero scheduled payments and 0% interest can indicate forbearance rather than collections.
  • For CRAs and defense counsel:
    • Scrutinize exhibits attached to pleadings. If they contradict the plaintiff’s inaccuracy allegations, a targeted Rule 12(b)(6) motion invoking the exhibits-control doctrine can resolve §1681i claims early.
    • Use neutral definitions (e.g., from Black’s Law Dictionary) to explain industry terms to the court at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
  • For district courts:
    • At the pleadings stage, evaluate attached reports holistically and in context. Where exhibits resolve a purported inaccuracy, dismissal is appropriate.
    • On post-judgment motions, if amendment cannot cure the defect (e.g., exhibits foreclose inaccuracy), denial for futility is sound even if some Rule 60(b) ground might otherwise be arguable.
  • Wider FCRA landscape:
    • The decision gels with Eleventh Circuit precedent requiring factual inaccuracy for §1681i claims and insisting on plausibility consistent with Twombly.
    • Although unpublished, the court’s use of dictionary definitions to construe reporting statuses may be cited persuasively where parties dispute the meaning of credit-report entries.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • FCRA §1681i (Reinvestigation duty): If you tell a credit bureau that something in your file is wrong, the bureau must reasonably reinvestigate. To sue, you must show (1) the file had a factual error, (2) the bureau’s reinvestigation wasn’t reasonable, and (3) you were harmed.
  • “Factual inaccuracy” vs. “disagreement”: A factual inaccuracy is something objectively wrong (wrong balance, wrong payment posted, wrong status). A mere disagreement with a creditor’s accounting treatment, absent a factual error, is not enough.
  • Charge-off: An internal accounting event where a creditor classifies a debt as unlikely to be collected. It does not necessarily eliminate the debt and can coexist with later credits or recoveries.
  • Forbearance: A pause or extension on making payments, often with no interest accrual during the period. On reports, it can be reflected by $0 scheduled payments and 0% interest.
  • Collections: A delinquent account placed with a collector or collections department. Labeling an account “in collections” suggests a different, more negative status than “forbearance.”
  • §1681n (Willful noncompliance): Allows damages when a credit bureau knowingly or recklessly violates the FCRA. If there’s no underlying violation, a willfulness claim fails.
  • Rule 60(b) relief: A way to set aside a final judgment for reasons like mistake, new evidence, or fraud. Courts will deny such relief if any amendment would still fail (futility).
  • Exhibits-control doctrine: If you attach a document to your complaint, the court treats what the document actually says as true, even if your narrative says otherwise.

Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in McWhorter v. TransUnion et al. is a clear reaffirmation of two bedrock principles in FCRA pleading: factual inaccuracy is indispensable to a §1681i claim, and attached exhibits control over contrary allegations. By carefully reading the plaintiff’s own credit report, the court concluded there was no factual inaccuracy regarding either the Westlake auto loan (the insurance payment was credited; the charge-off status was accurately recorded) or the Nelnet student loans (the entries reflected forbearance-like conditions, not collections). With no predicate violation, the willfulness claim under §1681n fell as well. Finally, the court held that Rule 60(b) relief would be futile because the defects are incurable by amendment in light of the exhibits.

Although unpublished, the opinion offers persuasive guidance: plaintiffs should avoid attaching documents that undermine their claims, or at least reconcile their allegations with the document’s contents; defense counsel should leverage exhibits to challenge plausibility early; and courts should not hesitate to apply the exhibits-control rule to prevent conclusory FCRA litigation from proceeding past the pleadings. The case thus contributes to a consistent Eleventh Circuit approach that demands factual specificity, respects the integrity of attached documents, and emphasizes futility as a bar to post-judgment amendments.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Comments