McFerren v. PHH Mortgage Corporation

Filing 14

ORDER signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. For the reasons stated in the Order, the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction 10 is granted. Status hearing of 12/16/2013 is vacated. Civil case terminatedMailed notice(slb, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
CARL MCFERREN, Sr.,
Plaintiff,
v.
PHH MORTAGE CORPORATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 13 C 06285

Judge Edmond E. Chang

ORDER
Carl D. McFerren, Sr., brought this case pro se, alleging that the mortgage
and note on his home were “split,” and now he wants to quiet title. R. 1 at 5. He
specifically asks the Court to “make a determination as the title and rights and
interest” in the property. Id. McFerren actually filed the suit “as the executor of the
Estate of Vivian H. McFerren.” Id. In the Court’s initial scheduling order, the Court
ordered McFerren to file a status report, including an explanation of the basis for
subject matter jurisdiction. R. 8, Attachment 1. Although McFerren had cited
federal constitutional provisions, the claim appeared to be really a state-law quiet
title action, which would require diversity of citizenship for jurisdiction.
The defendant is PHH Mortgage Corporation, which became the holder of the
note and decided to foreclose on it after default. PHH has filed a motion to dismiss
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The response was due on December 11, 2013,
but McFerren did not file a response. Setting aside the diversity jurisdiction issue,
PHH argues that there is a Rooker-Feldman bar to jurisdiction, because the Illinois
state court has already entered judgment on the note. As PHH’s motion explains, as
supported by the exhibits (which are fair game to consider because the motion
argues lack of subject matter jurisdiction), the mortgagors were actually Carl F.
McFerren, Sr., and Vivian H. McFerren. The state court entered judgment of
foreclosure and sale on July 13, 2011. The order confirming the sale was entered on
August 21, 2013.

PHH is correct that Rooker-Feldman deprives the lower federal courts of
jurisdiction over McFerren’s lawsuit. “The Rooker–Feldman doctrine is
jurisdictional in nature. . . . It prevents lower federal courts from reviewing statecourt judgments, over which only the United States Supreme Court has federal
appellate jurisdiction.” Crawford v. Countrywide Home Loans, 647 F.3d 642, 645-46
(7th Cir. 2011) (challenge to mortgage foreclosure judgment was precluded by
Rooker-Feldman doctrine) (citing, among other cases, Skinner v. Switzer, – U.S. –,
131 S. Ct. 1289, 1297 (2011)). To be sure, the doctrine is a narrow one, “confined to
cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court
judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting
district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Id. (quotation omitted). But
that is what McFerren seeks here (on behalf of the Estate of Vivian McFerren): to
overturn the judgment of foreclosure and sale already entered in state court. This
lower federal court cannot do that under Rooker-Feldman, and thus there is no
subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit.

ENTERED:

s/Edmond E. Chang
Honorable Edmond E. Chang
United States District Judge
DATE: December 12, 2013

2