Roberts v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC

Filing 12

Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Hillman: ORDER entered granting 4 Motion to Remand to State Court. (Belpedio, Lisa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

NANCY ROBERTS,
Plaintiff
v.
GMAC MORTGAGE,
Defendant
______________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. NO. 4:12-cv-10285-TSH

March 20, 2012
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND (Document #4)
GMAC Mortgage LLC (“GMAC”) seeks to foreclose on property owned by the Plaintiff, Nancy
Roberts (“Roberts”). Roberts has brought suit against GMAC seeking declaratory and equitable relief.
She seeks to prevent GMAC from conducting the foreclosure sale until they have complied with the
provisions of M.G.L. C. 244, §35A which she claims requires that a default notice be served upon her 150
days before the sale. She originally brought this action in the Worcester Superior Court on January 23,
2012. That case was removed to this court on February 14, 2012 based upon diversity of citizenship and a
claim in controversy in excess of $75,000 in satisfaction of the 28 U.S.C. 1332. Roberts now seeks to
remand the case back to the Superior Court because she claims that the U.S. District Court lacks
jurisdiction. Roberts argues that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over her complaint because
she requested only “preliminary injunctive relief temporarily enjoining foreclosure”, the value of which is
less than the $75,000.00 jurisdictional threshold. The Defendant argues that since the objective of the
litigation is to avoid foreclosure and maintain possession of the home that the value of the amount in
controversy is measured by the value of the subject property.

Where a Plaintiff seeks equitable relief, the amount-in–controversy is “measured by the value of
the object of the litigation.” Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 347, (1977). The
value is measured by “the judgment’s pecuniary consequence to those involved in the litigation.” Richard
C. Young & Co. v. Leventhal, 389 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2004). GMAC argues that this court should rely
upon the amount owed on the loan or the value of the property that is sought to be foreclosed (both in
excess of $75,000.00) as the amount-in-controversy. Morse v. Residential Credit Solutions, Inc., 2012
WL 458492 (“In cases that seek equitable relief against foreclosure sales, the fair market value of the
property to be foreclosed upon is an acceptable measure of the amount in controversy for purposes of
diversity jurisdiction”).
Here Roberts seeks temporary relief in the form of a delay in the foreclosure proceedings as
opposed to permanently enjoining them. She candidly admits that she seeks this delay so that her
children can finish the school year in their current school system and so that she can secure alternative
housing. She has clearly announced this position in her motion papers and at oral argument and has no
illusions or claim that the mortgage be declared invalid, or that it be rewritten. From Roberts’ perspective
the monetary value of the equitable relief is not the entire value of the property; rather it is the value of
the delay in the foreclosure proceedings. While this delay is important to Roberts it does not have a value
in excess of $75,000.00. See Macks v. U.S. Bank National Association, 2010 WL 2976200 (M.D. Ala.
2010). Accordingly, I grant the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand to State Court.

/s/Timothy S. Hillman
TIMOTHY S. HILLMAN
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE