Spann v. Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc.
2:25-cv-00380
D.S.C.Jun 5, 2025Background
- Plaintiff LoTonia Yvette Spann, acting pro se, initiated a civil action against Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc. regarding the repossession of her mobile home following a state court claim and delivery action.
- Spann previously filed three bankruptcy petitions (two under Chapter 13, one under Chapter 7) in an attempt to protect her home; all bankruptcy proceedings were eventually dismissed or closed without relief.
- Plaintiff alleges Vanderbilt violated the automatic bankruptcy stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 by failing to notify the state court about her ongoing bankruptcy proceedings while pursuing repossession.
- The Bankruptcy Court had already ruled that Vanderbilt began repossession before bankruptcy was filed and did not act in violation of any stay during bankruptcy.
- This action seeks injunctive relief (a TRO) and punitive damages to prevent repossession and compensate for alleged harm.
- The Magistrate Judge conducted a pre-service review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, determining there was no subject matter jurisdiction and that the complaint failed to state a plausible claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal Jurisdiction Over Bankruptcy | Federal court can review stay violations related to previously closed bankruptcies | Not directly stated, but invoked closings and lack of stay violation | No jurisdiction where bankruptcy cases are closed, with no pending appeal |
| Appeal of State Court Judgment | District court should overturn or stop state court repossession judgment | Not directly stated | No jurisdiction; Rooker-Feldman bars review of state court judgments |
| TRO Against Repossession | TRO needed to avoid irreparable harm and preserve bankruptcy rights | Not directly stated | TRO denied; no urgent facts shown, requirements of Rule 65(b) not met |
| Automatic Stay Violation | Vanderbilt violated § 362 by not disclosing bankruptcy to state court | Not directly stated; prior court found no violation | No facts allege willful violation or injury; claim fails as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992) (standards for frivolousness and dismissal of IFP complaints)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (legal standards for sua sponte dismissal of meritless claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standards for civil actions)
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) (federal district courts lack authority to review state court judgments)
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) (federal district courts cannot serve as appellate courts for state court decisions)