Crawford v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14924
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Countrywide originated a 2001 mortgage to the Crawfords; Foreclosure Solutions and attorney Dilk allegedly failed to represent them.
- Foreclosure judgment in Indiana state court entered August 4, 2006; relief from judgment denied August 2, 2007.
- Sheriff's sale occurred December 13, 2006; Fannie Mae purchased the property but used Countrywide to service it.
- Writ of assistance issued June 25, 2008; eviction loomed after escrow payments faltered in October 2008.
- Crawfords filed federal and state actions; district court dismissed several defendants, granted Countrywide summary judgment on remaining claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Rooker-Feldman deprive jurisdiction here? | Crawfords claim independent relief, not review of state judgment. | Claims attacked state-court foreclosure; barred. | Rooker-Feldman applied to barred claims; remaining claims jurisdictionally proper. |
| Standard for summary judgment was correct? | Disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment. | Countrywide met burden; Crawfords failed to show genuine disputes. | District court used proper standard; no genuine issues after undisputed facts. |
| Dismissal of Sheriff Mollenhauer claims was proper? | Sheriff liable for discriminatory conduct and due process. | No factual pleading linking sheriff to liability. | District court's dismissal of sheriff claims affirmed. |
| Dismissal of Attorney Dilk claims was proper? | Dilk's misconduct breached contract benefitting Crawfords. | No viable contract-based or other actionable claims stated. | Dismissal of Dilk claims affirmed. |
| District court's denial of leave to add Bank of America was proper? | Bank of America should be added due to alter-ego theory. | No direct allegations or viable basis to pierce corporate veil. | Denial of leave to add Bank of America affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 374 F.3d 529 (7th Cir. 2004) (limits for when Rooker-Feldman applies)
- Kelley v. Med-1 Solutions, LLC, 548 F.3d 600 (7th Cir. 2008) (determinates governing jurisdiction under Rooker-Feldman)
- Remer v. Burlington Area Sch. Dist., 205 F.3d 990 (7th Cir. 2000) (Rooker-Feldman not implicated where relief does not contradict state judgment)
- TruServ Corp. v. Flegles, Inc., 419 F.3d 584 (7th Cir. 2005) (jurisdictional analysis under Rooker-Feldman)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard; no genuine dispute facts)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (burden shifting in summary judgment)
- Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1970) (burden on movant to show absence of genuine factual dispute)