Vossbrinck v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 23024
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- In 2005 Vossbrinck took a mortgage from Accredited; Accredited later assigned the note to Deutsche Bank. Foreclosure proceedings commenced and a Connecticut state court entered a Judgment of Strict Foreclosure in favor of Deutsche Bank in June 2011.
- Vossbrinck filed a pro se federal complaint alleging TILA/RESPA/state-law lending violations; after failing to reopen the foreclosure he filed a state action alleging fraud in the foreclosure.
- Deutsche Bank removed the state fraud action to federal court and the federal and removed actions were consolidated into an amended complaint asserting (a) lending claims and (b) fraud claims based on alleged misrepresentations about standing and fabricated title documents.
- The district court dismissed the consolidated complaint, ruling Rooker-Feldman deprived it of jurisdiction over claims that sought to undo the foreclosure; it also held alternatively that claims were time-barred and barred by collateral estoppel.
- On appeal Vossbrinck challenged only the district court’s Rooker-Feldman dismissal of his fraud claims. The Second Circuit agreed Rooker-Feldman barred federal review of claims that effectively seek to void the state foreclosure judgment, but held the district court should have remanded those removed state-origin claims to state court rather than dismissing them on the merits.
- The panel affirmed dismissal of (1) any fraud claims not subject to Rooker-Feldman because Vossbrinck waived challenges to the district court’s alternative rulings (timeliness/collateral estoppel), and (2) all lending claims because he did not challenge their dismissal on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rooker-Feldman bars federal adjudication of fraud claims that attack the foreclosure judgment | Vossbrinck argued the foreclosure was obtained by fraud and sought title/tender and a declaration that the judgment is void | Defendants argued the claims amount to an impermissible federal appeal of a state-court judgment | Court: Rooker-Feldman bars claims that invite review/rejection of the state foreclosure judgment |
| Whether removed state-origin claims should be dismissed or remanded when Rooker-Feldman applies | Vossbrinck sought federal relief on those claims (originally filed in state court) | Defendants had removed the state action to federal court | Court: Because the claims originated in state court and were removed, the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and should remand rather than dismiss those claims on the merits |
| Whether fraud claims that do not seek to overturn the state judgment survive Rooker-Feldman | Vossbrinck contended some fraud claims seek damages for injuries independent of the state judgment | Defendants argued those claims were alternatively barred by collateral estoppel and timeliness | Court: To the extent such non-Rooker-Feldman claims exist, dismissal is affirmed because Vossbrinck waived challenge to district court’s alternative rulings (collateral estoppel/timeliness) |
| Whether lending claims survive | Vossbrinck challenged lending claims below but raised no arguments on appeal | Defendants maintained dismissal was appropriate | Court: Affirmed dismissal of lending claims (no appellate challenge) |
Key Cases Cited
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (Rooker-Feldman bars federal district courts from effectively reviewing state court judgments)
- Hoblock v. Albany Cnty. Bd. of Elecs., 422 F.3d 77 (describes Rooker-Feldman four-part test)
- Lapides v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 535 U.S. 613 (removal cannot be used to defeat remand when federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Truong v. Bank of America, 717 F.3d 377 (5th Cir.: distinguishes damages claims from attempts to void state foreclosure judgments)
- McCormick v. Braverman, 451 F.3d 382 (6th Cir.: alternative approach to Rooker-Feldman in foreclosure-related fraud cases)
- Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings, LLC, 748 F.3d 769 (7th Cir. decisions on Rooker-Feldman application)
- Crawford v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 647 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. analysis consistent with limiting Rooker-Feldman to de facto appeals)
- Kelley v. Med-1 Solutions, LLC, 548 F.3d 600 (7th Cir. ruling on related foreclosure-process claims)
- Great Western Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159 (3d Cir.: Rooker-Feldman did not bar conspiracy-to-corrupt-state-process due-process claim)
- Loubser v. Thacker, 440 F.3d 439 (7th Cir.: similar holding on corruption of state judicial process)