This is another in a continuing occasional series. This post follows the June 8, 2011 post here, "Foreclosure Lawsuits Problems Attempt Overcoming Courts: No. 1, With Solutions," and the post on June 6, 2011 on Insurance Claims and Issues Web Log, "Frivolous Foreclosure Fraud Attempt to Overcome Courts". This post also adds to the many previous posts in the Category of "Foreclosures" on both Blogs.
In Download Brooks v. Flagstar Bank, FSB (E.D. La. Case No. 11.67, Order and Reasons Filed July 12, 2011) PUBLIC ACCESS, also published as 2011 WL 2710026 (E.D. La. July 12, 2011)(authorized password required to access Westlaw), the Federal Court applied "the Rooker-Feldman doctrine" to measure whether it would exercise jurisdiction over eleven (11) asserted Claims. That doctrine relates to collateral attacks on final State Court Judgments, in this case, a Judgment of Foreclosure.
In basic and simple terms, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine a Federal Court will refuse to exercise jurisdiction to hear what is essentially an appeal of a State Court Judgment. Brooks v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 2011 WL 2710026 at *2 - *3.
The occasion for applying the Rooker-Feldman doctrine was in the context of a Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). That Motion was filed by the Defendant Bank's law firm and by one Candace A. Coutreau. The Federal Court applied the doctrine to dismiss two of the eleven Claims alleged against those parties: Claims based on (1) an alleged abuse of executory process and on (2) an alleged abuse of executory process in bad faith. Id. at *4.
That left nine (9) Claims remaining, which the Court held were not barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Although all remaining Claims were dismissed as against the Bank's law firm and Ms. Coutreau for failure to state a Claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), they are at least potentially available in an appropriate set of facts as against the Bank itself. The nine such Claims alleged in this case were alleged (1) Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violations; (2) Federal Unfair Trade Practices; (3) Deceit; (4) Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (5) Justifiable Reliance; (6) Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices; (7) Negligence; (8) Fraud, and (9) Conspiracy. See id. at *1, *4 - *10. (According to PACER, the Online Docket of the Federal Courts, the Bank's Answer or other responsive pleading is not yet due.)
In addition to these further possible solutions to the problems of Foreclosure Lawsuits filed in an apparent attempt to overwhelm Courts, there is also the reported potential of a Class Action Lawsuit based on alleged violations of (1) the Federal Truth-in-Lending Act and (2) State Consumer Protection Statutes. See Kenneth R. Harney, "Litigation Gauges Banks' Ability to Cut Home-Equity Credit Lines / A Possible Giant Class-Action Lawsuit is Considered a Bellwether Test of Homeowner Rights under the Truth in Lending Act and State Consumer Protection Statutes" (Los Angeles Times Online, Sunday, July 17, 2011).
Please Read The Disclaimer.
Comments