Chapman v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 12693
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Chapmans filed a Nevada quiet title action against Deutsche Bank, National Default Servicing, and HomEq Servicing, later removed to federal court.
- Unlawful Detainer Action was filed by Deutsche Bank in Nevada state court seeking possession of the Property.
- Chapmans allege improper notice under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 107.080 and that Defendants lack ownership of the note/deed of trust.
- Deutsche Bank purchased the Property at a trustee's sale in October 2008.
- Federal court denied remand and dismissed the Quiet Title Action; Ninth Circuit certified Nevada Supreme Court questions due to unresolved state-law characterization.
- State-law questions determine whether concurrent actions are in rem, quasi in rem, or in personam and thus affect prior exclusive jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Characterization of quiet title action under Nevada law | Chapman contention: action is in rem or quasi in rem | Deutsche Bank contends characterization may differ; not clearly in rem or in personam | Open questions; NV Supreme Court to decide |
| Characterization of unlawful detainer action under Nevada law | Chapman contend unlawful detainer is in rem or quasi in rem | Deutsche Bank contends different categorization; needs Nevada ruling | Open questions; NV Supreme Court to decide |
| Effect of Nevada law characterization on prior exclusive jurisdiction | If both actions are in rem/quasi in rem, prior exclusive jurisdiction applies | If either is in personam, doctrine may not apply | Outcome depends on NV Supreme Court; certification necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Knaefler v. Mack, 680 F.2d 671 (9th Cir.1982) (prior exclusive jurisdiction and in rem considerations)
- Pennsylvania Gen. Cas. Co. v. Pennsylvania ex rel. Schnader, 294 U.S. 189 (1935) (in rem vs. in personam distinctions; comity considerations)
- State Eng'r v. S. Fork Band of Te-Moak Tribe of W. Shoshone Indians, 339 F.3d 804 (9th Cir.2003) (mandatory nature of prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine)
- Resolution Trust Corp. v. Bayside Developers, 43 F.3d 1230 (9th Cir.1994) (timing of jurisdiction attachment; removal considerations)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) (abstention and comity principles in parallel proceedings)
- One 1985 Cadillac Seville, 866 F.2d 1142 (9th Cir.1989) (abstention/remand standards when concurrent state actions exist)
- Garfinkle v. Wells Fargo Bank, 483 F.2d 1074 (9th Cir.1973) (amount in controversy in real-property disputes)