Robin Duncan v. US Bank, NA, 574 F. App'x 599

Duncan and Rockey sued U.S. Bank National Association and Select Portfolio Servicing over a mortgage on 8453 Olenbrook Dr, Lewis Center, Ohio, arising from a 2005 note/mortgage and subsequent loan modification.
They allegedly made payments under the modification but were told to stop paying as paperwork transitioned, leading to foreclosure filing in Oct 2010 and state-court default judgment in Jan 2011.
After foreclosure, SPS allegedly demanded payments and offered to reinstate or halt the foreclosure for specific sums; plaintiffs did not accept offers.
They filed a federal complaint asserting multiple claims (injunctive relief, contract, promissory estoppel, OCSPA, fraud, good faith, bad faith, unjust enrichment, and FDCPA), challenging earlier actions and the foreclosure.
The district court granted dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6): Count I under Rooker-Feldman; remaining claims barred by claim preclusion as to pre-foreclosure conduct; SPS not deemed a debt collector; judgment upheld on appeal.
Plaintiffs argue independent post-foreclosure claims escape Rooker-Feldman and that preclusion should not bar claims; on appeal, the court affirms dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rooker-Feldman bars Count I injunctive relief	Duncan/ Rockey contend state judgment isn’t the sole injury source	Foreclosure judgment is the injury source; Rooker-Feldman applies	Count I lacks independent injury source; Rooker-Feldman applies; affirmed
Whether Ohio claim preclusion bars the pre-foreclosure claims	Pre-foreclosure conduct could be raised as counterclaims	Final foreclosure judgment bars subsequent claims arising from same transaction	Yes, claim preclusion bars breach, promissory estoppel, fraud arising from pre-foreclosure conduct
Whether post-foreclosure conduct claims survive	Post-foreclosure conduct (offers to reinstate/halt) support claims	Those claims either could have been raised earlier or are barred by preclusion	Barred by claim preclusion as arising from the same transaction; not revived on appeal
Whether the FDCPA status of SPS affects the case	SPS is a debt collector and violates FDCPA	FDCPA issue not dispositive; court did not reach on appeal	Not ripe on appeal; district court’s determination not challenged on this point

DLX, Inc. v. Kentucky, 381 F.3d 511 (6th Cir. 2004) (standard for Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility; not explicit here but cited for standard)
Top Flight Entm’t, Ltd. v. Schuette, 729 F.3d 623 (6th Cir. 2013) (de novo review of Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) when no fact-finding required)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for complaint sufficiency)
McCormick v. Braverman, 451 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2006) (counterclaims and defenses may be raised in note/foreclosure actions)
Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1984) (preclusion principles across state and federal judgments)
Grava v. Parkman Twp., 653 N.E.2d 226 (Ohio 1995) (Ohio law on claim preclusion; final judgment bar)
Portage Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs v. Akron, 846 N.E.2d 478 (Ohio 2006) (elements of claim preclusion in Ohio)
Hapgood v. Warren, 127 F.3d 490 (6th Cir. 1997) (reiteration of claim preclusion framework)
Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459 (U.S. 2006) (Rooker-Feldman limits lower federal court jurisdiction over state-court judgments)
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (U.S. 2005) (relationship between federal court review and state-court judgments)
Dist. of Columbia Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1983) (origin of Rooker-Feldman doctrine)