Terrie Heibel, et al v. FNMA, et al

Filing

Per Curiam OPINION filed: We agree with the holding of the district court and AFFIRM its judgment. Julia Smith Gibbons and Raymond M. Kethledge, Circuit Judges; and Robert M. Dow , Jr., U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

Case: 14-1067

Document: 38-2

Filed: 10/31/2014

Page: 1

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 14a0827n.06

FILED

No. 14-1067

Oct 31, 2014
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
TERRIE M. HEIBEL, JOSEPH T. KRYWICKI, and
SUSAN C. KRYWICKI,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION,
Defendant-Appellee,
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Intervenor-Appellee.

BEFORE:

GIBBONS and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges; and DOW, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

In 2008, Terrie Heibel and Joseph Krywicki signed a note and

mortgage to purchase a house in Holland, Michigan, in which their daughter and grandchildren
could live. After default and foreclosure on the home, the foreclosing creditor assigned its
interest in the property to the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”), which by
that time had been placed into conservatorship by the Federal Housing Finance Agency
(“FHFA”). Fannie Mae then brought an action to evict the daughter from the residence. In
response, Heibel, Krywicki, and their daughter initiated a separate state court action against


The Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr., United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

Case: 14-1067

Document: 38-2

Filed: 10/31/2014

Page: 2

No. 14-1067
Heibel, et al. v. Federal National Mortgage Association
Fannie Mae and its predecessors in interest, alleging violation of their constitutional due process
rights. After defendants removed and FHFA intervened as conservator, the district court held
that Fannie Mae was not a government entity subject to such a constitutional limitation and
dismissed the due process claim. Heibel and her family ask us to review that decision, and
whether Fannie Mae is a government actor presents the sole question in this appeal.
We have recently answered that exact question in the negative, fully cognizant of
FHFA’s conservatorship. See Rubin v. Fannie Mae, No. 13-1010, 2014 WL 4800282, at *1–2
(6th Cir. Sept. 29, 2014); Bernard v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, No. 13-1477, 2014 WL 4800123,
at *4 (6th Cir. Sept. 29, 2014). We have similarly rejected arguments that Fannie Mae’s twin,
Freddie Mac, is a government actor for the purpose of constitutional claims. See Fed. Home
Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Gaines, No. 13-1249, 2014 WL 4815274, at *1–2 (6th Cir. Sept. 30, 2014);
Mik v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 743 F.3d 149, 168 (6th Cir. 2014). Given the full
reasoning of those cases, no more explanation is necessary here. We agree with the holding of
the district court and affirm its judgment.

-2-