Purnie Peterson v. CitiMortgage, Inc.
704 F.3d 548
8th Cir.
2013
Check Treatment
Docket

Purnie Ray PETERSON; Matthew R. Jaakola; Kristin M. Jaakola; Charles Jaakola; Hamilton E. Girard; Lori J. Girard; Bradley Verne Nelson; James P. Gillach; Debra K. Gillach; Riley L. Svihel; Harold J. Hansen; Cynthia L. Meissner; Michael Meissner; True Xiong Yang; Cha Tou Yang; Jason Appel; Cindy Welch; Sergey P. Krachenets; Laurie M. Lundeen; Michael P. Boie; Dina M. Boie; Michael W. Cross; Debbie K. Rolfing; Paula T. Viehman; Scott A. Jacobsen; Julie A. Jacobsen; Kenneth F. Northwick; Felicia Northwick; Cynthia J. DuBe; Robert M. DuBe; Simeon Wiechmann; Christine Wiechmann; Scott D. Cole; Stephanie C. Cole, Appellants v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC.; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; MERSCORP, Inc.; EverBank; EverHome Mortgage Company; John Wedel; Wedel Home Services, Inc.; Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation; Federal National Mortgage Association; Usset, Weingarden and Liebo, P.L.L.P., Appellees.

No. 12-2530

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Submitted: Jan. 14, 2013. Filed: Jan. 28, 2013.

701 F.3d 548

ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

were not executed by an authorized individual” and that “[t]he Assignments of Plaintiffs’ Mortgages were invalid.” Another theory pleaded here—that “Defendants are not entitled to receive payments on Plaintiffs’ Original Notes under the express terms of Plaintiffs’ Original Notes and Mortgages“—was not considered in Murphy but is likewise not foreclosed by Jackson‘s rejection of the “show-me-the-note” theory.

We nevertheless affirm the district court‘s dismissal of the quiet title action based on these three grounds because the plaintiffs did not sufficiently plead them. We apply federal pleading standards—Rules 8 and 12(b)(6)—to the state substantive law to determine if a complaint makes out a claim under state law. See ; see also . The Minnesota quiet title statute provides in relevant part that “[a]ny person in possession of real property ..., may bring an action against another who claims an ... interest therein, or a lien thereon, adverse to the person bringing the action, for the purpose of determining such adverse claim and the rights of the parties, respectively.” Minn. Stat. § 559.01. The plaintiffs correctly note that, historically, the “only facts necessary to constitute a cause of action under this statute are, the actual possession of the land by the plaintiff ... and some claim by the defendants adverse to him, of an estate or interest in the land.” . But these are only the state pleading rules; they are not state substantive standards that govern the success of a quiet title claim. Indeed, “[t]he fact of possession or vacancy is not a jurisdictional fact, nor does it go to the merits of the controversy as to title“; instead “[i]t goes only to the right of the plaintiff to present his claim of title under the form of action,” to quiet title. . We therefore affirm the district court‘s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ three theories for quiet title that are not precluded by Jackson, because the plaintiffs’ pleadings, on their face, have not provided anything to support their claim that the defendants’ adverse claims are invalid, other than labels and conclusions, based on speculation that transfers affecting payees and assignments of the notes were invalid. See ; .

Affirmed.

William B. Butler, Minneapolis, MN, for appellants.

Gerald G. Workinger, Jr., Minneapolis, MN, for Appellee Usset, Weingarden, & Liebo, P.L.L.P.

Charles K. LaPlante, Los Angeles, CA, Justin Donald Balser, Denver, CO, for Appellees EverBank and EverHome Mortgage Company.

John Wheeler, St. Paul, MN, for Appellees John Wedel and Wedel Home Services, Inc.

Kelly Hoversten and John Lester Krenn, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellees CitiMortgage, Inc., Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., and Federal National Mortgage Association.

Maritoni Derecho Kane, Lucia Nale, and Thomas V. Panoff, Chicago, IL, Richard Caldarone, Washington, DC, for Appellees CitiMortgage, Inc., Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., Federal National Mortgage Association, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., and MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. f/k/a MERSCORP, Inc.

Before MURPHY, ARNOLD and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

Approximately thirty-five mortgagors appeal from the district court‘s1 dismissal of their claims against the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC) and other financial institutions, the law firm of Usset, Weingarden & Liebo, P.L.L.P., John Wedel, and Wedel Home Services, Inc. The mortgagors asserted twenty-one claims under Minnesota state law related to the defendants’ rights to the mortgages on the mortgagors’ homes. The district court had original jurisdiction over the claims against the FHLMC under 12 U.S.C. § 1452(f), and exercised its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). After the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the mortgagors appealed. We affirm.

This is the latest in a string of substantially similar cases brought recently in Minnesota, see , and, applying de novo review to the district court‘s grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal motion, see , we conclude that our recent precedents require a quick rejection of most of the claims advanced in this case. We reject the mortgagors’ argument that the district court improperly dismissed their claims against the Usset law firm, see , and their contention that their complaint made out a Minnesota slander-of-title action, see .

The mortgagors also argue that the district court erred in dismissing their claims against the financial institutions: They assert that their complaint made out a quiet title claim under Minn.Stat. § 559.01. The Minnesota quiet title statute provides, “Any person in possession of real property or any other person having or claiming title to vacant or unoccupied real property, may bring an action against another who claims ... a lien thereon, adverse to the person bringing the action, for the purpose of determining such adverse claim and the rights of the parties, respectively.” Minn. Stat. § 559.01. Construing a predecessor statute with virtually identical language, the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that a complaint that fails to “state, either that plaintiff was in possession, or that the land was vacant,” is “demurrable, as not stating facts sufficient to constitute” a quiet title action. ; see . Not only did the mortgagors not plead that they were in possession of the properties, but their complaint implied that at least one of them was in fact not in possession: It alleged that one of the defendants “put” one of the mortgagors “out of her home in a forcible manner by removing her personal property,” see Compl. ¶ 222, and “thereafter forcibly kept [the mortgagor] out of her home by changing the locks,” see id. at ¶ 223. The mortgagors, moreover, did not plead that they “hav[e] or claim[ ] title to vacant or unoccupied real property.” Minn. Stat. § 559.01. Therefore, the mortgagors did not make out a quiet title claim, and the district court properly dismissed their claims against the financial institutions.

The court invites the appellees to file a detailed bill of costs, fees, and damages for its consideration.

Affirmed.

ARNOLD

Circuit Judge

Notes

1
The Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
Read the detailed case summary