Seitz v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n
909 F. Supp. 2d 490
E.D. Va.2012Background
- Seitz challenges a foreclosure-based dispute over 16297 Washington Highway, Doswell, Virginia, involving Flagstar Bank and later Fannie Mae.
- Flagstar foreclosed in 2010–2011 and conveyed the property to Fannie Mae via trustee’s deed recorded July 25, 2011.
- Fannie Mae sued Seitz in unlawful detainer in state court; Seitz appealed and a separate quiet-title action was filed in circuit court.
- The circuit court consolidated the unlawful detainer and quiet-title actions; Flagstar and Fannie Mae removed the quiet-title action to federal court in 2012.
- Seitz moved to remand, arguing the state court action (unlawful detainer) and federal action are in rem or quasi in rem, triggering the prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine.
- The federal court granted remand, applying Virginia law to classify the actions and concluding concurrent in rem/quasi in rem jurisdiction favors remand to the state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nature of unlawful detainer in rem status | Seitz argues unlawful detainer is quasi in rem affecting title. | Defendants contend unlawful detainer is in personam and does not implicate title. | Unlawful detainer is quasi in rem; it affects title-related interests as between the parties. |
| Nature of quiet title action | Seitz contends quiet title is in rem or quasi in rem under Virginia law. | Defendants argue quiet title is in personam. | Quiet title is in rem or quasi in rem under Virginia law, not purely in personam. |
| Applicability of prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine | Remand should be based on state court first exercising jurisdiction over the res. | Two actions are distinct or consolidation nullifies in rem concern. | Doctrine applies; federal action must be remanded because state court has been exercising jurisdiction over the res first. |
| Colorado River abstention | Abstention is appropriate to avoid piecemeal litigation and respect state proceedings. | Abstention not automatic; federal review may be appropriate. | Colorado River abstention supports denying federal jurisdiction; abstain in favor of state proceedings. |
| Consolidation effect on remand | Consolidation signals merged proceedings; could affect removal/remand. | Consolidation does not merge cases or defeat jurisdiction; may favor abstention. | Consolidation does not remove jurisdiction; nonetheless it supports abstention. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 651 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2011) (two related actions may be in rem or quasi in rem; prior-exclusive-jurisdiction doctrine applicable)
- McHan v. United States, 345 F.3d 262 (4th Cir. 2003) (quiet title-like actions; comparative analysis to in rem vs in personam)
- Cadorette v. United States, 988 F.2d 215 (1st Cir. 1993) (quiet title actions treated as in personam; in rem considerations discussed)
- O’Hara v. Pittston Co., 42 S.E.2d 269 (Va. 1947) (distinguishes in rem vs in personam; title interests as a real property concept)
- Westfeldt v. North Carolina Mining Co., 166 F.1 706 (4th Cir. 1909) (prior exclusive-jurisdiction doctrine applied to prevent conflicting judgments)
- Gale v. Trust Co. of Norfolk, 128 S.E. 643 (Va. 1925) (unlawful detainer focuses on right of possession)
- Corbett v. Nutt, 59 Va. (18 Gratt.) 624 (1868) (possession and title concepts in detainer actions)
- Clem v. Given’s Ex’r, 106 Va. 145 (Va. 1906) (notice by publication and quasi in rem considerations in land matters)
- Jones v. Priest, 2009 WL 7388845 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2009) (notice sufficiency in rem quiet-title context (state court) (not official reporter))
- McClellan v. Carland, 217 U.S. 268 (U.S. 1910) (pendency of state action generally not bar to federal proceeding)