The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a lower court's summary judgment ruling in favor of Freedom Mortgage Corporation in a Fair Credit Reporting Act dispute, rejecting claims by Minnesota homeowners who alleged the mortgage servicer provided inaccurate credit information.
In *Johnson v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation* (8th Cir. 2026), Lea and Samantha Johnson sued the mortgage servicer under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, alleging that Freedom Mortgage provided inaccurate information about them to credit reporting agencies and failed to conduct a reasonable investigation when they complained about the reporting.
The district court granted summary judgment to Freedom Mortgage, finding there was no material dispute about the accuracy of the credit reports. The Eighth Circuit affirmed that ruling in an opinion filed Feb. 2, 2026.
According to court records, the Johnsons purchased a home in Minnesota with a mortgage loan that has been serviced by Freedom Mortgage since late 2019. Initially, the couple made regular online payments to the servicer.
The payment arrangement changed after the Johnsons filed for bankruptcy in March 2020. Following their bankruptcy filing, they reaffirmed the mortgage loan, but Freedom Mortgage required them to switch from online payments to mailed payments.
Freedom Mortgage provided specific payment instructions to the Johnsons through a welcome letter and monthly statements. The welcome letter directed them to "make checks payable to Freedom Mortgage Corporation" and emphasized the importance of including their mortgage loan number on all payments. The monthly statements reiterated these instructions, telling the Johnsons to "make your check or money order payable to Freedom Mortgage" and to "include your loan number."
Each monthly statement included a payment coupon that listed the loan number for reference. These detailed instructions appeared designed to ensure proper processing of mailed payments.
The dispute arose from a payment made on April 28, 2020, when Lea Johnson mailed a cashier's check for $1,596.00 to cover the $1,595.12 mortgage payment due May 1, 2020. According to her testimony, Johnson included a piece of paper with the loan number along with the payment.
The case centers on what happened after Freedom Mortgage received this payment and how the company reported information about the Johnsons' account to credit bureaus. The specific details of the alleged inaccurate reporting are not fully detailed in the available court record excerpt.
Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, consumers have the right to dispute inaccurate information on their credit reports. When a dispute is filed, the entity that furnished the information to credit bureaus must conduct a reasonable investigation to verify the accuracy of the disputed information.
The Johnsons claimed that Freedom Mortgage violated the FCRA by providing inaccurate information to credit reporting agencies and by failing to properly investigate their complaints about the reporting. These are common claims in FCRA litigation against mortgage servicers and other creditors.
The district court rejected the Johnsons' claims, determining that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the accuracy of the information reported by Freedom Mortgage. This finding was crucial because it meant the case could be resolved through summary judgment rather than proceeding to trial.
Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine disputes about material facts and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In FCRA cases, courts often focus on whether the reported information was factually accurate and whether any investigation conducted was reasonable under the circumstances.
The Eighth Circuit's affirmance suggests the appeals court agreed with the district court's analysis that Freedom Mortgage's credit reporting was accurate and that any investigation conducted met FCRA standards.
This decision adds to the body of federal appeals court precedent interpreting FCRA obligations for mortgage servicers. The ruling may provide guidance for other courts handling similar disputes between homeowners and mortgage companies over credit reporting practices.
The case also highlights the importance of following specific payment instructions provided by mortgage servicers, particularly for borrowers who have filed for bankruptcy and reaffirmed their loans. Changes in payment methods and processing procedures can sometimes lead to confusion or disputes.
Freedom Mortgage Corporation is a major mortgage servicer that handles loan payments and customer service for mortgages originated by various lenders. The company, like other servicers, regularly reports payment information to credit bureaus as part of standard industry practice.
The Johnsons were represented in their appeal to the Eighth Circuit, though the specific attorneys are not identified in the available court record. Freedom Mortgage presumably defended the case through corporate counsel.
The ruling represents a victory for Freedom Mortgage in defending its credit reporting practices against FCRA claims. For the Johnsons, the affirmance means their claims against the mortgage servicer have been definitively rejected by both the trial court and appeals court.