Bonnie Owens, et al v. FNMA

Filing

Per Curiam OPINION filed : The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Decision not for publication. Alice M. Batchelder, David W. McKeague, and Jane Branstetter Stranch, Circuit Judge.

Case: 15-1024

Document: 34-2

Filed: 12/23/2015

Page: 1

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 15a0831n.06
Case No. 15-1024

FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

BONNIE OWENS, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION, d/b/a FANNIE MAE,
Defendant-Appellee.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Dec 23, 2015
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk

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

OPINION

BEFORE: BATCHELDER, McKEAGUE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Appellants Bonnie and Lucille Owens1 defaulted on their mortgage
loan. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., commenced foreclosure by advertisement pursuant to Mich.
Comp. Laws § 600.3201 et seq. The property was sold at a sheriff’s sale to Wells Fargo and was
later transferred to Appellee Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae). After Fannie
Mae filed a summary proceeding to obtain possession of the property, Bonnie Owens filed a
counter-complaint against Fannie Mae, asserting claims for negligence, unconstitutional
deprivation of property,2 wrongful foreclosure in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3201 et
seq., discrimination under the Fair Housing Act, and exemplary damages.

The case was

removed to federal court, and Fannie Mae moved to dismiss Owens’ claims. The district court
1

Although Lucille Owens is a named plaintiff, she passed away on January 13, 2013.

2

The parties stipulated to dismissing Owens’ constitutional claim with prejudice.

Case: 15-1024

Document: 34-2

Filed: 12/23/2015

Page: 2

Case No. 14-2219
United States v. Rosenbaum
referred the motion to a magistrate judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R)
recommending that the motion to dismiss be granted. The district court adopted the R&R and,
after responding to Owens’ objections, dismissed her claims.
We review a district court’s order dismissing a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo.
Glazer v. Chase Home Fin. LLC, 704 F.3d 453, 457 (6th Cir. 2013). To the extent that Owens
argues she was not in default, she failed to raise this argument in any of her pleadings before the
district court, and we decline to address arguments first raised on appeal.

Overstreet v.

Lexington-Fayette Urban Cty Gov’t, 305 F.3d 566, 578 (6th Cir. 2002). Moreover, the record
indicates Owens missed several payments following her loan modification and that she clearly
was in default.

Owens’ remaining arguments are meritless and are fairly and adequately

addressed in the district court’s order adopting the R&R.3 To issue another opinion reiterating
the analysis would be duplicative and is unnecessary. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

3

Not only were the claims correctly addressed below, but we have also affirmed the dismissal of nearly identical
claims and arguments—brought by Owens’ counsel—twice. See Campbell v. Nationstar Mortg., 611 Fed. App’x
288 (6th Cir. 2015); Bernard v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 587 Fed. App’x 266 (6th Cir. 2014).

-2-