622 F. App'x 514
6th Cir.2015Background
- Yaldo obtained a $500,000 mortgage in 2007, defaulted, and a predecessor of Homeward Residential foreclosed in 2010; Yaldo let the statutory redemption period expire.
- Homeward later quitclaimed the property to Residential Credit Solutions; Residential filed an eviction action in state court in 2014.
- Yaldo sued in state court asserting wrongful foreclosure, quiet title, fraud, and FDCPA violations; defendants removed to federal court and Yaldo then removed the eviction action.
- Defendants moved to dismiss (or for summary judgment) and to remand the eviction action; the district court dismissed Yaldo’s federal claims and remanded the eviction to state court.
- Yaldo appealed, arguing her filing of exhibits should have converted defendants’ motions to summary judgment; Homeward sought appellate attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of foreclosure / standing to challenge after redemption period | Yaldo argued foreclosure was irregular/invalid (e.g., Homeward was in bankruptcy; servicing transfers) | Defendants argued Yaldo let redemption expire and failed to plead fraud/irregularity with particularity or prejudice | Dismissed: plaintiff lacks a legal interest after letting redemption expire and failed to plausibly allege fraud/irregularity or prejudice |
| Alleged FDCPA violation | Yaldo asserted defendants acted as debt collectors and violated FDCPA | Defendants contended plaintiff pled only conclusory allegations without factual support | Dismissed: conclusory FDCPA allegations insufficient to survive Rule 12(b)(6) |
| Whether filing exhibits converted motions to summary judgment | Yaldo argued exhibits attached to her response required conversion to summary judgment proceedings | Defendants argued dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was proper and conversion unnecessary; a deficient complaint would also fail at summary judgment | Denied: conversion not required; claims would fail on the merits under Rule 12(b)(6) |
| Remand of eviction proceeding | Yaldo challenged remand as improper | Defendants argued removal was untimely, no federal question, and Yaldo (a Michigan resident) could not remove | Not reviewable on appeal: remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction affirmed and appellate review barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaints must plead factual content to state a plausible claim)
- Conlin v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., 714 F.3d 355 (6th Cir. 2013) (setting forth fraud/irregularity and prejudice requirements to set aside a Michigan sheriff’s sale)
- Connolly v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 581 F. App’x 500 (6th Cir. 2014) (mortgagor who lets redemption period expire lacks cognizable property interest absent clear fraud/irregularity and prejudice)
- Wallace v. Washington Mut. Bank, F.A., 683 F.3d 323 (6th Cir. 2012) (standing and pleading requirements for FDCPA claims)
- Cleveland Hous. Renewal Project v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co., 621 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2010) (remand orders for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction are not reviewable on appeal)