Brown v. Select Portfolio Servicing Inc. et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 1/6/2012. (lih)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

)

)

)

Affiant,
)

) Misc. No. 11- 210-GMS
v.
)

SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC. )

)

and U.S. NATIONAL BANK
)

ASSOCIATION,
)

)

Respondents.

CHARLES S. BROWN, JR.,

MEMORANDUM
The affiant, Charles S. Brown, Jr. ("Brown"), who proceeds pro se filed the instant
motion for the registration of final judgment and exemplification. (D.1. 1.) In addition, he filed a
petition to admit and give full faith and credit to administrative record and judgment via the
authority of28 U.S.C. §§ 754,1963,1738, and/or 1739. (D.1. 2.)

I. BACKGROUND
The motion for registration of final judgment states that default judgment was entered in
favor of Brown against Select Portfolio Servicing ("Select Portfolio") and U.S. National Bank
Association ("National Bank") (together "the respondents") and that the final determination and
judgment is for the recovery of money. Exhibits provided to the court include a May 5, 2011
affidavit notice and demand and debt validation notice signed by Brown, notarized, and served
upon Select Portfolio on the same day. The affidavit "granted" Select Portfolio fifteen days to
respond and, when it did not, on June 14,2011, Brown served upon it an affidavit notice of
default with opportunity to cure. Thereafter on August 16,2011, Brown filed with the New
Castle County Recorder of Deeds an affidavit of notice of default with certificate of non-response
dated July 13,2011. On August 9,2011, counsel for U.S. Bank National Association advised

Brown that his loan was in default and that it had been instructed to proceed with foreclosure.
On August 19,2011, Brown served upon the respondents an affidavit of a qualified written
request for verification of proof of claim to the respondents. (DJ. 2.)
Finally, Brown provides a final detennination and judgment that contains within a default
judgment. The purported "default judgment" is not signed by a judge, does not indicate the court
from which it allegedly issued, and lists damages in the sum of eight million, one hundred thirty­
one thousand, eight hundred forty-eight dollars ($8,131,848.00). It was signed by Brown on
September 26, 20 II and is notarized. It appears, but is not clear, that Brown wishes this court to
enter default judgment against the respondents. Brown has paid the $39.00 fee to register the
judgment.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A federal court may, at any time, raise the issue of whether it properly has subject matter
jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). The court is not limited to the face of the pleadings in
detennining whether it has subject matter jurisdiction; it "may review any evidence to resolve
factual disputes concerning the existence ofjurisdiction." Norman v. United States, 1996 WL
377136, at *1 (E.D. Pa. July 3, 1996), aff'd, 111 F.3d 356 (3d Cir. 1997).

III. DISCUSSION
The court has reviewed Brown's pleadings and exhibits and concludes that he either
demands the court register a Delaware judgment or moves this court to enter a default judgment

in a Delaware state court case. Pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1963, only a judgment rendered by a
federal court may be registered in the federal courts. Although federal law provides for the
registration of foreign judgments for enforcement, that statute applies only to judgments of other

2

federal courts of appeals, district courts, bankruptcy courts, and the Court of International Trade.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1963. Brown's filings do not fall within the scope of § 1963.
While the court certainly must accord full faith and credit to a Delaware state judgment
(should one actually exist) in accordance with Article IV § I of the United States Constitution and
28 U.S.C. § 1738, it cannot properly register a state court judgment. Giving a state judgment full
faith and credit means giving it preclusive effect, while registering a judgment requires that the
court adopt the judgment as its own. See New York Times Media, LLC v. Bay Guardian Co.,

Inc., 2010 WL 2573957, at *3 (D. Del. June 28, 2010) (citing Ws. Frey Co., Inc. v. Precipitation
Assocs. ofAm., Inc., 899 F.Supp. 1527, 1528 (W.D. Va. 1995); Seoul Guarantee Ins. Co. v.
YoungJikShon, 2008 WL 5235913 (M.D. Ala. Dec. 15,2008)).
This court cannot register a state court judgment. Nor can it enter default judgment in a
case that has never before been filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware. Inasmuch as Brown has failed to provide a judgment that is enforceable through the
federal registration statute, he has failed to demonstrate a jurisdictional basis for this action.

IV. Conclusion
Based upon the foregoing analysis, Brown's pending motion will be denied as moot and
the case will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court will direct the clerk
of the court to return Brown's $39.00 filing fee check and to close this case.
An appropriate order will be entered.

;:r~ G

,2012
Wilmington, Delaware

3