Green v. Federal Housing Finance Agency et al

Filing 39

OPINION AND ORDER granting 11 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The 2 Class Action Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. See Opinion and Order for details. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, terminate all deadlines and close the case. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 6/13/2013. (AAA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
LINDA DOGGETT, as Clerk of the Court
for Lee County, Florida, and on
behalf of all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No.

2:12-cv-553-FtM-29DNF

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, as
Conservator for Federal National
Mortgage Association and Federal
Home Loan Mortgage Corporation,
FEDERAL
N A T I O NA L
MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION, a federally chartered
corporation
a/k/a
Fannie
Mae,
FEDERAL
HOME
LOAN
MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, a federally chartered
corporation a/k/a Freddie Mac,
Defendants.
___________________________________
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. #11) filed on October 12,
2012.

Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. #22) on

November 15, 2012.
(Doc. #28).

On December 13, 2012, defendants filed a Reply

Additionally, defendants filed four Notices of New

Authority (Docs. ## 29, 30, 31, 35).

For the reasons set forth

below, the motion is granted.
I.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a Complaint
must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that

the pleader is entitled to relief.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

This

obligation “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)(citation
omitted).

To survive dismissal, the factual allegations must be

“plausible” and “must be enough to raise a right to relief above
the speculative level.”

Id. at 555.

See also Edwards v. Prime

Inc., 602 F.3d 1276, 1291 (11th Cir. 2010).
unadorned,

This is “more than an

the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me

accusation.”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(citations omitted).
In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court must
accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them
in the light most favorable to plaintiff, Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89 (2007), but “[l]egal conclusions without adequate factual
support are entitled to no assumption of truth,” Mamani v. Berzain,
654

F.3d

“Threadbare

1148,

1153

recitals

of

(11th
the

Cir.

2011)(citations

elements

of

a

cause

omitted).
of

action,

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”
556 U.S. at 678.
with

a

“Factual allegations that are merely consistent

defendant’s

plausible.”

Iqbal,

liability

fall

short

of

being

facially

Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th

Cir. 2012)(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Thus,

the Court engages in a two-step approach: “When there are wellpleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity

-2-

and

then

determine

whether

entitlement to relief.”

they

plausibly

give

rise

to

an

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
II.

On October 5, 2012, plaintiff Linda Doggett, Clerk of the
Circuit Court in and for Lee County, Florida (Doggett)1 filed a
two-count Class Action Complaint (Doc. #2) against defendants
Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), Federal Home
Loan

Mortgage

Corporation

(Freddie

Mac),

and

Federal

Housing

Finance Agency as Conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
(FHFA).

Plaintiff alleges that: (1) Fla. Stat. § 201.02 “imposes

a documentary tax on documents that transfer an interest in Florida
real property,” (Doc. #2, ¶ 8); (2) defendants Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac have transferred title and ownership to properties
subject to foreclosure, (id., ¶¶ 14, 20); (3) defendants have not
paid documentary taxes for the transfers, (id., ¶ 21); and (4)
instead, defendants have claimed that state and federal law exempts
them from paying the tax, (id., ¶¶ 19, 22).

Plaintiff contends

that these exemptions do not apply and brings claims against
defendants
enrichment.

for

non-payment

(Doc. #2.)

of

documentary

taxes

and

unjust

Defendants now move to dismiss the Class

Action Complaint, arguing that federal law exempts defendants from
paying the tax.

(Doc. #11.)

1

The Class Action Complaint was filed by Charlie Green, who
has since been succeeded by Linda Doggett as the Lee County Clerk
of Court. (Doc. #28.)
-3-

Fannie Mae’s federal charter, Freddie Mac’s federal charter,
and the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, each provide
that defendants “shall be exempt from all taxation” imposed by any
State, county, municipality, or local taxing authority.

12 U.S.C.

§§ 1452(e), 1723a(c)(2), 4617(j)(2).2 The primary issue in dispute
is whether “all taxation” applies only to direct taxes or also
extends to excise taxes, such as documentary taxes.

Plaintiff

asserts that “[t]he law in this regard has been well settled since
the Supreme Court held that a general exemption from ‘all taxation’
does not extend to an exemption from excise taxes.”

(Doc. #22, p.

7)(emphasis omitted)(citing United States v. Wells Fargo, 485 U.S.
351, 355-56 (1988)).

Defendants, on the other hand, suggest that

the plain language of the exemptions immunize defendant from all
taxes including excise taxes.

(Doc. #11, pp. 7-12.)

Over the last two years, nearly identical claims have been
filed by various state and local officials against defendants in
several federal courts including the Middle District of Florida’s
Tampa Division, the Eastern and Western Districts of Michigan, the
District of Columbia, the Northern District of Illinois, the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the District of Minnesota, the
District of Maryland, the District of New Jersey, the Middle

2

The provisions include an exception for a direct tax on real
property, which is inapplicable here.
-4-

District of Alabama, and the Middle District of Georgia.3

Each of

these cases has addressed the issue of whether the exemptions apply
in the context of documentary taxes.

Plaintiff cites to Oakland

Cnty. v. Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency, 871 F. Supp. 2d 662 (E.D. Mich.
2012), which found the county’s argument persuasive and entered
summary judgment for the county.

(Doc. #2, ¶¶ 24, 25; Doc. #22, p.

13.) However, the Sixth Circuit has recently vacated that decision
and remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment for
defendants.

Cnty. of Oakland v. Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency, Nos. 12-

2135, 12-2136, --– F.3d ---, 2013 WL 2149964 (6th Cir. May 20,
2013). The Sixth Circuit held that the provisions at issue plainly
state that defendants are exempt from “all taxation” including
excise taxes and that the county’s argument was without merit. Id.

3

Nicolai v. Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency, No. 8:12-cv-1335-T-33EAJ,
--- F. Supp. 2d ---, 2013 WL 899967 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2013);
Oakland Cnty. v. Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency, 871 F. Supp. 2d 662 (E.D.
Mich. 2012), vacated, 2013 WL 2149964 (6th Cir. May 20, 2013);
Hertel v. Bank of Am., 897 F. Supp. 2d 579 (W.D. Mich. 2012); Hager
v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 882 F. Supp. 2d 107 (D.D.C. 2012);
Fannie Mae v. Hamer, No. 12 C 50230, 2013 WL 591979 (N.D. Ill. Feb.
13, 2013); Del. Cnty. v. Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency, Civil Action No.
12-4554, 2013 WL 1234221 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 26, 2013); Hennepin Cnty.
v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass'n, No. 12-2075(DSD/TNL), --- F. Supp. 2d
---, 2013 WL 1235589 (D. Minn. Mar. 27, 2013); Vadnais v. Fed.
Nat’l Mortg., No. 12-1598(DSD/TNL), 2013 WL 1249224 (D. Minn. Mar.
27, 2013); Montgomery Cnty. v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, No. 130066, 2013 WL 1832370 (D. Md. Apr. 30, 2013); Cape May Cnty. v.
Fannie Mae, No. 12-cv-4712 (D.N.J. Apr. 30, 2013); Montgomery Cnty.
Comm'n v. Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency, No. 2:12cv885-MHT, 2013 WL
1896256 (M.D. Ala. May, 6, 2013); Athens-Clarke Cnty. Unified Gov't
v. Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency, 5:12-cv-355 MTT, --- F. Supp. 2d ---,
2013 WL 2102922 (M.D. Ga. May 14, 2013).
-5-

The remaining cases have similarly found that the plain language of
the exemptions immunizes defendants from excise taxes and have
granted defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The Court agrees with the reasoning of the Sixth Circuit and
the many district courts which have previously addressed this issue
and

finds

that

the

plain

language

of

the

provisions

exempt

defendants from owing documentary taxes due under Fla. Stat. §
201.02.

Therefore, the motion to dismiss is granted.

Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint
(Doc. #11) is GRANTED and the Class Action Complaint (Doc. #2) is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
2.

The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, terminate all

deadlines and close the case.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 13th day of
June, 2013.

Copies: Counsel of record

-6-