MAYOTTE v U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
- Case Type:
- Consumer
- Case Status:
- Affirmed in part and Reversed in part
- Citation:
- 16-1252 (10th Circuit, Jan 23,2018) Published
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the appellant's RESPA claim because, on appeal, she did not argue that such dismissal was improper. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the district court (D. Colo.) dismissing the remainder of appellant's claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal actions to modify or set aside a state-court judgment, not actions that could result in relief that is inconsistent with the state court judgment.
- Procedural context:
- Following a payment default on her mortgage loan, foreclosure proceedings under Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 120 were commenced. After the Colorado state court entered a finding that there was a reasonable probability that a default existed, but before her house was sold, the appellant filed litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado asking for injunctive relief and damages under RESPA, FDCPA and other claims. No injunction was entered, and appellant's house was sold at foreclosure. The appellants moved to dismiss the federal court complaint. Appellant's RESPA claim was dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and her remaining claims were dismissed under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
Appellant appealed.
- Facts:
- Mary Mayotte (the appellant) was the debtor on a note held by U.S. Bank, N.A. (USBank) that was secured by a Colorado deed of trust on her residence. Wells Fargo serviced the loan for USBank. Mayotte contacted Wells Fargo about a loan modification. Wells Fargo allegedly told Mayotte that she needed to miss three mortgage payments in order to obtain a modification. Mayotte did so, and Wells Fargo placed her in default.
Foreclosure proceedings, under Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 120 (Rule 120), were commenced.
Mayotte, pro se, then commenced litigation in federal court, asking the district court to enjoin the sale of her residence. The court took no action before the sale, and Mayotte twice amended her complaint.
Appellants moved to dismiss Mayotte's complaint. The district court dismissed Mayotte's RESPA claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and dismissed her remaining claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, concluding that Mayotte's claims "effectively ask[ed] the [c]ourt to unwind the results of the Rule 120 proceedings."
The Tenth Circuit found that the district court misunderstood the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and that Rooker-Feldman did not bar Mayotte's non-RESPA claims. The Tenth Circuit further directed the district court "to determine whether the Rule 120 proceedings and the sale of Plaintiff's home have any effect (preclusive, equitable, or otherwise) on the resolution of her claims or the relief to which she is entitled."
- Judge(s):
- HARTZ, HOLMES, BACHARACH
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!
