828 F.3d 532
7th Cir.2016Background
- Bank of America sued in Wisconsin state court in 2009 to foreclose a residential mortgage; defendants Dawn and Carl Green removed to federal court on diversity grounds.
- After a bench trial the district court entered judgment for Bank of America, finding $708,027.92 due (as of Nov. 12, 2013), ordered a sheriff’s sale after a statutory redemption period, and barred any deficiency judgment against defendants.
- Defendants filed a notice of appeal and briefed merits issues (evidentiary sufficiency and leave to amend to add counterclaims).
- This court, aware of its then-pending decision in HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Townsend, directed supplemental briefing and argument on whether the foreclosure judgment was a final, appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
- The district-court judgment allowed post-judgment redemption and required court confirmation of any sheriff’s sale under Wisconsin law; unlike Townsend, the judgment expressly precluded a deficiency judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the foreclosure judgment is a final appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 | Bank of America argued the judgment was final because it fixed the amount owed and barred deficiency recovery | Greens argued the judgment was not final because post-judgment redemption and sale confirmation mean further proceedings remain | Court held the judgment is not final and dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, applying Townsend |
| Whether the absence of a possible deficiency judgment makes the foreclosure order final | Bank of America implied finality given the bar on deficiency liability | Greens emphasized remaining procedural steps (redemption and sale confirmation) even without deficiency risk | Court held the lack of deficiency relief does not change the Townsend analysis; remaining post-judgment proceedings render the order non-final |
| Whether federal courts should follow state appellate practice on finality | Bank of America suggested Wisconsin treats such judgments as appealable, supporting review | Greens relied on federal precedents (Townsend) and federal finality rules to oppose immediate appeal | Court concluded federal procedural law governs; must follow Townsend despite divergence from Wisconsin state practice |
| Whether Townsend precedent controls within the circuit | Bank of America argued distinctions (no deficiency) warrant different result | Greens argued Townsend compels dismissal despite differences | Court applied Townsend as binding precedent and dismissed the appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Townsend, 793 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 2015) (foreclosure judgment ordering sale is not a final appealable order when redemption and sale confirmation remain)
- Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196 (1988) (federal law governs procedural rules of finality; importance of bright-line rules for appellate jurisdiction)
- Anchor Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Coyle, 435 N.W.2d 727 (Wis. 1989) (Wisconsin treats foreclosure judgments ordering sale as final and appealable)
- Shuput v. Lauer, 325 N.W.2d 321 (Wis. 1982) (Wisconsin Supreme Court discussion supporting appealability of foreclosure judgments ordering sale)