Spann v. Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc.
2:25-cv-00380
D.S.C.Jun 20, 2025Background
- Plaintiff, LoTonia Yvette Spann, filed a pro se complaint and a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc., relating to the alleged wrongful repossession of her residence.
- The complaint references prior bankruptcy proceedings and a state court claim and delivery action concerning her property.
- Spann alleged that the repossession attempts violated her federal bankruptcy discharge and invoked 11 U.S.C. § 524(a) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The Magistrate Judge recommended denying the TRO, dismissing the complaint without prejudice, and without leave to amend, citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
- Spann filed objections, asserting new evidence and alleging ongoing federal discharge violations, but did not cure the identified procedural or substantive deficiencies.
- The District Court reviewed the case de novo, found no legal basis for claims under federal jurisdiction, and dismissed the action as recommended by the Magistrate Judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject matter jurisdiction over bankruptcy | Court can review discharge violations from closed bankruptcies | Federal court lacks jurisdiction over closed bankruptcies | No jurisdiction; all related bankruptcies are closed |
| Federal review of state court claim & delivery | Court can hear appeal of state court repossession order | Federal courts cannot hear state court appeals | No jurisdiction to hear 'appeal' from state courts |
| Stating a claim under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)/§ 524(a) | Defendant violated bankruptcy discharge/protections | No stay violation alleged or proven | Complaint fails to state a claim for federal relief |
| TRO standards under Rule 65(b) | Immediate irreparable harm; repossession is illegal | Plaintiff fails to allege specific facts required for TRO | TRO denied for failure to comply with established requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (standards for Magistrate Judge recommendations and de novo review by district court)
- Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (standard for district court review in absence of timely objections to Magistrate Report)