On November 14, 2012, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held in Yunker v. Allianceone Receivables Mgmt., that a defendant may not appeal an unconditional post-settlement final judgment despite expressly reserving its appellate rights in the settlement agreement itself.

In Yunker, the plaintiff (Wendy Yunker) claimed that Allianceone used unlawful debt collections methods in attempting to collect a debt from her. Yunker charged that Allianceone's actions violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Florida law. The district court ruled in favor of Yunker on summary judgment, holding that Allianceone's conduct did, indeed, violate the FDCPA.

After the summary judgment ruling, Allianceone sent Yunker an offer of judgment letter under FRCP 68 to settle her FDCPA claims. In that letter, Allianceone expressly reserved its right to appeal the trial court's summary judgment ruling. Yunker accepted Allianceone's settlement offer, and the district court entered final judgment in favor of Yunker on her FDCPA claims. Yunker's state-law claims were also dismissed with prejudice after the parties settled those claims. Allianceone appealed.

On appeal, Allianceone urged the Eleventh Circuit to hold that its conduct did not, as a matter of law, violate the FDCPA. Without reaching the merits, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot. Once the parties settled their case and the district court entered an unconditional final judgment, the court reasoned, there was no "live" controversy between Yunker and Allianceone for the appeals court to resolve. The Eleventh Circuit explained that even if it were to rule that Allianceone's conduct did not violate the FDCPA, that ruling alone would not alter the parties' settlement or the district court's final judgment. At best, all the court could do was issue an impermissible advisory opinion on the question of Allianceone's FDCPA liability. This, the Eleventh Circuit was unwilling to do.