Bloodman v. Bank of America NA et al

Filing 32

ORDER remanding this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 7/18/2017. (ljb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
TERESA BLOODMAN
v.

PLAINTIFF
CASE NO. 4:16-CV-00773 BSM

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.;
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
a subsidiary of MERSCORP, INC., as Nominee and Mortgagee for
One Bank and Trust, an Arkansas Corporation;
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS; ONE BANK AND TRUST,
an Arkansas Corporation, CARRINGTON MORTGAGE
SERVICES, LLC
DEFENDANTS
ORDER
On July 15, 2014, Bank of America filed a complaint for reformation and foreclosure
against Teresa Bloodman in state court. See Bank of America, N.A. v. Teresa Bloodman, et
al., No. 63CV-14-415 Circuit Court of Saline County, Arkansas, Civil Division (July 15,
2014). The subject property is described as follows:
Lot 6, Hurricane Lake Estates, Phase IV, An Addition to the City of Benton,
Saline County, Arkansas, Together with Ingress and Egress Easements As Set
Forth on Plat Filed as Document No. 04 97943; Correction Plat Filed as
Document No. 04 103235, Records of Saline County, Arkansas.
The state court entered a decree of foreclosure in favor of Bank of America and closed the
case on December 29, 2014. That decree stated that any interest Bloodman had in the
property is “forever barred and foreclosed.” Id. Bloodman moved to set aside the judgment
on January 12, 2015, and that motion was denied on March 13, 2015.

Bloodman

unsuccessfully appealed to the Arkansas Court of Appeals. She moved to set aside the
commissioner’s sale on September 19, 2016. An order confirming the sale was nonetheless

entered on September 20, 2016. Bloodman removed that case to federal court, and it was
remanded back to state court pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Bloodman v. Bank
of America, N.A., et al., No. 4:17-CV-00112 KGB (E.D. Ark. Mar. 1, 2017), ECF No. 23.
Bloodman asserts a plethora of claims aimed at regaining rights to the property
foreclosed upon. See Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, Breach of Contract, Breach of
Duty of Good Faith, Quiet Title, and for Damages, Doc. No. 2, at 2, 27. Bloodman asserts,
among other things, that she is entitled to the property because she was not given proper
notice related to the foreclosure proceedings. Id. ¶¶ 55, 71, 80.
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine states that federal district courts lack subject matter
jurisdiction over challenges to state court decisions. Charchenko v. City of Stillwater, 47
F.3d 981, 983 (8th Cir. 1995). “In other words, Rooker-Feldman precludes a federal action
if the relief requested in the federal action would effectively reverse the state court decision
or void its ruling.” Id. The Circuit Court of Saline County, Arkansas issued a decision
severing all of Bloodman’s interest in the Hurricane Lakes property, and Bloodman’s claims
in this case are “inextricably intertwined” with that state court judgment. See Postma v. First
Fed. Sav. & Loan of Sioux City, 74 F.3d 160, 162 (8th Cir. 1996). Thus, her attempt to
challenge that decision in federal court amounts to an impermissible “collateral attack in
federal district court on a state foreclosure judgment.” Id. Accordingly, this case is
remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of July 2017.

________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE