Wilson v. Deutsche Bank National Trust, 410 F. App'x 409

Wilson, proceeding pro se, appeals a district-court dismissal of her adversary proceeding against Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (DBNTC).
Foreclosure judgment favoring DBNTC was entered in Connecticut state court in June 2008.
Wilson filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and an adversary proceeding within months after the foreclosure judgment.
Her complaint challenged DBNTC’s standing and asserted wrongful foreclosure.
The district court, acting as appellate court in bankruptcy, dismissed the appeal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
The court applies plenary review to district-court decisions in bankruptcy cases and reviews the Rooker-Feldman issue de novo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rooker-Feldman bars the claim	Wilson contends state-court judgment is reviewable.	DBNTC argues state-court judgment forecloses federal review.	Yes; Rooker-Feldman applies.
Whether the state foreclosure judgment was properly connected to the bankruptcy proceeding	Wilson alleges injuries from foreclosure.	Foreclosure judgment relates to state proceedings; district review barred.	Yes; connection warrants application of Rooker-Feldman.
Whether the stay issue affects the dismissal	Open to challenge the stay violation.	Rooker-Feldman dispositive, stay issue not reached.	Not reviewed; not necessary to decide.

In re Stoltz, 315 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2002) (premise that district-court rulings in bankruptcy are reviewed de novo for law and facts for factual findings are upheld unless clearly erroneous)
In re Enron Corp., 419 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2005) (bankruptcy appellate review standards; de novo for law, clear error for facts)
Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) (Rooker–Feldman doctrine governs federal review of state-court judgments)
Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) (basis for Rooker–Feldman doctrine limitations)
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) (modification of Rooker–Feldman test; four elements)