Leonard P. Machulas v. Shell Point Mortgage Company

── Leonard P. Machulas v. Shell Point Mortgage Company ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: June 09, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-13286 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 06/09/2026 Page: 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-13286 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ LEONARD P.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, She