Edgar Nivia, et al v. Nation Star Mortgage, LLC, et al

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellants Cielo Lopez and Edgar Nivia. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 14-14048

Date Filed: 08/19/2015

Page: 1 of 8

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-14048
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-24080-MGC

EDGAR NIVIA,
CIELO LOPEZ,
Plaintiffs - Appellants.
versus
NATION STAR MORTGAGE, LLC,
AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC,
Defendants - Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(August 19, 2015)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 14-14048

Date Filed: 08/19/2015

Page: 2 of 8

Edgar Nivia and Cielo Lopez, proceeding pro se, appeal the district court’s
dismissal of their first amended complaint (the “complaint”) against Aurora Loan
Services, LLC (“Aurora”), and Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (collectively, the
“lenders”). 1 Mr. Nivia and Ms. Lopez (the “homeowners”) seek damages for the
lenders’ alleged noncompliance with the Troubled Asset Relief Program
(“TARP”), the Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”), and the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”). 2 This is their
appeal.
I.
The relevant facts are as follows: The homeowners signed a mortgage to
secure a loan for their home. After they defaulted on the loan, Aurora filed a
mortgage foreclosure action in Florida state court and obtained a final judgment in
December 2011. The property was then sold in a public sale in late October 2012. 3
Shortly before the sale, in early October, the homeowners filed a lawsuit against
the lenders. They primarily alleged that the lenders should have granted a loan

1

The lenders’ motion to file their response brief and appendix out of time is granted.

2

TARP is the “centerpiece of the [Emergency Economic Stabilization] Act [of 2008,]”
bestowing a host of “duties and powers” upon the Secretary of the Treasury for the purpose of
facilitating economic recovery. Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 673 F.3d 547, 556 (7th Cir.
2012). HAMP is one component of TARP focused specifically on protecting home ownership.
See 12 U.S.C. § 5219a.
3

Aurora purchased the property through the public sale. The certificate of sale
transferred the property to Aurora, in care of Nationstar Mortgage, LLC.
2

Case: 14-14048

Date Filed: 08/19/2015

Page: 3 of 8

modification request they made in September 2012 — nine months after the
foreclosure judgment. The homeowners alleged that in failing to grant the loan
modification request, the lenders neglected their duty under TARP and HAMP to
provide loan modifications and rendered unfair and deceptive their public
representations that they were committed to providing loan modifications, in
violation of the FDUTPA.
The lenders removed the case to federal district court and then moved to
dismiss. The district court granted the motion on several grounds: (1) the RookerFeldman doctrine barred the district court from exercising subject matter
jurisdiction; (2) the doctrine of res judicata also barred the suit; (3) neither TARP
nor HAMP creates a private right of action; and (4) the complaint failed to state a
claim under the FDUTPA. After careful review, we agree that the RookerFeldman doctrine bars the FDUTPA claim as pled in the complaint, but it does not
bar the putative claims under TARP and HAMP. Nevertheless, we agree that the
homeowners failed to state claims under those programs. Thus, we affirm the
dismissal of the action. 4

4

The homeowners argue that the lenders’ motion to dismiss their first amended
complaint was moot in the light of their second amended complaint, but the record reveals that
no second amended complaint was ever filed.
3

Case: 14-14048

Date Filed: 08/19/2015

Page: 4 of 8

II.
To determine whether we have subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal,
we review de novo the application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Lozman v.
City of Riviera Beach, 713 F.3d 1066, 1069 (11th Cir. 2013). “We review de novo
the district court’s grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim, accepting the complaint’s allegations as true and construing them in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333,
1335 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[W]e . . .
give liberal construction to the pleadings of pro se litigants” but require them
always “to conform to procedural rules.” Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829
(11th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).
III.
We first consider the district court’s application of the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine. The district court concluded that the December 2011 forfeiture judgment
in Florida state court precluded the instant action. We agree only with respect to
the FDUTPA claim. Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal district courts
lack subject matter jurisdiction to review final state court decisions. Nicholson v.
Shafe, 558 F.3d 1266, 1270-72 (11th Cir. 2009). “The doctrine applies both to
federal claims raised in the state court and to those inextricably intertwined with
the state court’s judgment,” meaning that the district court may not entertain claims
4

Case: 14-14048

Date Filed: 08/19/2015

Page: 5 of 8

that “would effectively nullify the state court judgment or . . . succeed[] only to the
extent that the state court wrongly decided the issues.” Casale v. Tillman, 558
F.3d 1258, 1260 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted).
Here, we note that, in asserting claims under TARP and HAMP, the
homeowners neither seek to undo the effect of the foreclosure judgment nor make
arguments that would have undermined its validity. First, the homeowners seek
only damages, which, if awarded, would not nullify the state court judgment
because the instant action does not challenge the transfer of the real property
effectuated by the foreclosure. Second, the success of putative claims under TARP
or HAMP would not require a determination that the state court erroneously
entered the foreclosure judgment. In concluding otherwise, the district court relied
on Figueroa v. Merscorp, Inc., 766 F. Supp. 2d 1305 (S.D. Fla. 2011) aff’d, 477
Fed. App’x 558 (11th Cir. 2012), in which a district court found that it lacked
jurisdiction over federal RICO claims because their success would have required
the court to “find that wire and mail fraud occurred in [the] prosecution of [the]
foreclosures” at issue, which “would [have] effectively declare[d] the state court
[foreclosure] judgment[s] fraudulently procured and thus void.” 766 F. Supp. 2d at
1324 (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, however, the homeowners’
challenge to the lenders’ denial of their modification request has no bearing on the
5

Case: 14-14048

Date Filed: 08/19/2015

Page: 6 of 8

legal validity of the state court’s foreclosure judgment. The homeowners alleged
only that the lenders failed to respond adequately to their September 2012 request
for a loan modification, which could not have been at issue in the foreclosure
proceeding that concluded in December 2011. Further, and more importantly,
there is no authority for the proposition that a lender’s failure to fulfill any duties
under TARP or HAMP invalidates a foreclosure resulting from that failure as a
matter of law. The Rooker-Feldman inquiry is not whether a claim for damages is
based to any degree on harm resulting from a valid state court judgment, as is the
case here. The inquiry is whether either the damages award would annul the effect
of the state court judgment or the state court’s adoption of the legal theory
supporting the award would have produced a different result. See Casale, 558 F.3d
at 1260. Neither is the case here. For these reasons, the putative claims under
TARP and HAMP are not barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
With respect to the district court’s application of Rooker-Feldman to the
FDUTPA claim, in support of this claim the homeowners alleged more broadly
that the lenders failed to “help [them] to modify their loan[,] denying them any
possibility to cure their default, which constitutes a deceptive practice to the
public” in the light of the lenders’ public representations that loan modifications
were generally available. Am. Compl. at 7 ¶ 21. We construe this allegation to
extend beyond the lenders’ denial of the September 2012 loan modification request
6

Case: 14-14048

Date Filed: 08/19/2015

Page: 7 of 8

and to include conduct before the foreclosure judgment. In effect, the
homeowners’ claim amounts to an equitable defense to foreclosure that they failed
to raise before the state court. See Shahar v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, 125 So.
3d 251, 252-54 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013) (finding unclean hands to be a
sufficiently pled affirmative defense to foreclosure where a lender made material
misrepresentations in connection with the mortgage). Consequently, we agree with
the district court that success on the merits of the FDUTPA claim would require a
determination that the state court entered the forfeiture judgment “wrongly,” i.e.,
that the judgment was legally invalid. See Casale, 558 F.3d at 1260. “By failing
to raise [their] claim[] in state court[,] [the homeowners] forfeit[ed] [their] right to
obtain review of the state court decision in any federal court.” D.C. Court of
Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 n.16 (1983). The district court correctly
concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the FDUTPA claim.
Next, we review whether the homeowners’ allegations that the lenders failed
to comply with TARP and HAMP stated a claim. These claims fail because no
private right of action is available under TARP or HAMP. We previously have
held that there is no express or implied private right of action against loan servicers
under HAMP. Miller v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 677 F.3d 1113, 1116 (11th Cir.
2012) (per curiam).

7

Case: 14-14048

Date Filed: 08/19/2015

Page: 8 of 8

Although we have never held in a published opinion that TARP provides no
private right of action against private entities, we reach that conclusion here. The
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 authorized the Secretary of the
Treasury to establish TARP, under which it may “purchase . . . troubled assets
from any financial institution” and take other necessary actions. 12 U.S.C. § 5211.
The Act provides for judicial review of the Secretary’s actions, but nowhere does it
mention a private right of action against private entities. See id. § 5229. We can
thus infer that Congress did not intend to create a private right of action for
borrowers to sue lenders under TARP. See Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275,
290 (2001) (providing that “[t]he express provision of one method of enforcing a
substantive rule suggests that Congress intended to preclude others”); see also
Wachovia Bank, Nat’l Assoc. v. Lone Pine, Inc., No. 1:09-CV-02983-JOF, 2010
WL 2553880, at *2 (N.D. Ga. June 15, 2010) (collecting cases recognizing no
private right of action under TARP).
IV.
Because we conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the
FDUTPA claim and that the homeowners failed to state cognizable claims under
TARP or HAMP, we need not address the district court’s discussion of res judicata
or whether they stated a claim under the FDUTPA. The district court’s dismissal
of the action is AFFIRMED.
8