Jaakola et al v. The Bank of New York Mellon et al

Filing 29

ORDER Adopting 19 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; Overruling 21 Objection to Report and Recommendations filed by Kristin Jaakola, Matthew Jaakola (Written Opinion). Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 9/29/2014. (PJM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 13-2919(DSD/JSM)
Matthew Jaakola and
Kristin Jaakola,
Plaintiffs.
ORDER TO VACATE

v.
The Bank of New York Mellon,
f/k/a The Bank of New York
as Trustee for Certificate
Holders of CWMBS, Inc., CHL
Mortgage Pass Through Trust
2006-HYB-2 Mortgage Pass
Through Certificates, Series
2006-HYB2, et al.,
Defendants.

This matter is before the court upon the objections by pro se
plaintiffs1 Matthew and Kristin Jaakola (the Jaakolas) to the July
24, 2014, report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Janie S.
Mayeron.

After a de novo review, and based on the file, record,

and proceedings herein, the court overrules the objections and
adopts the report and recommendation.

BACKGROUND
This
property

1

mortgage

dispute

previously

owned

arises
by

the

out

of

Jaakolas

the

foreclosure

(Property).

on
The

At the start of this action, plaintiffs were represented by
William B. Butler. On January 14, 2014, Butler was suspended from
the practice of law in the District of Minnesota.
See In re
Butler, No. 13-mc-49 (D. Minn. Jan. 14, 2014).

background of this case is fully set forth in the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation, and the court recites only those
facts necessary to resolve the present objections.

The Jaakolas

acquired the Property through two quit claim deeds.

Compl. ¶ 2.

Prior to the transfer, the former owner entered into a note and
mortgage (Mortgage) with American Brokers Conduit (ABC).

Mortgage

Electronic Registration System, Inc. (MERS) was named as the
nominee for ABC.

Id. ¶ 5.

The Mortgage was then securitized into

a mortgage-backed security trust with a closing date of February 8,
2006 (Trust).

Id. ¶¶ 7, 12.

Pursuant to the Trust’s Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA),
the parties to the securitization process were required to deliver
to the Trust all documents establishing a chain of title, including
any executed assignment of mortgage, to the Bank of New York as
Trustee (BONYM).

Id. ¶ 8.

On July 16, 2010, an Assignment of

Mortgage was executed from MERS to BONYM.

Id. ¶ 24.

BONYM later

foreclosed on the property, and a sheriff’s sale was held on July
18, 2011.

Id. ¶ 26.

Following the sale, the Jaakolas brought a

quiet title action in Anoka County District Court.

In addition,

the Jaakolas alleged slander of title and sought declaratory relief
regarding BONYM’s interest in the Property. Defendants removed and
moved

to

dismiss.

On

July

24,

2014,

the

magistrate

judge

recommended that the court grant defendants’ motion and dismiss the

2

action with prejudice.

The Jaakolas timely objected to the report

and recommendation.2

DISCUSSION
The

court

reviews

the

magistrate judge de novo.

report

and

recommendation

of

the

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ.

P. 72(b)(3); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b).

The Jaakolas first argue that

the magistrate judge erred by applying federal, rather than state,
pleading standards to dismiss their quiet title claim.

The court

applies “federal pleading standards - Rules 8 and 12(b)(6) - to the
state substantive law to determine if a complaint makes out a claim
under state law.” Karnatcheva v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 704
F.3d 545, 548 (8th Cir. 2013); see also Vang v. PNC Mortg., Inc.,
No. 12-2501, 517 Fed. Appx. 523, 527 (8th Cir. May 22, 2013)(noting
Minnesota’s quiet title statute “establishes only the elements of
a quiet title claim and not the manner in which those elements must
be pleaded”).
Under

Minnesota’s

quiet

title

statute,

“[a]ny

person

in

possession of real property personally ... may bring an action
against another who claims an estate or interest therein, or a lien

2

On August 14, 2014, the Jaakolas separately filed a Request
for Judicial Notice under Minnesota Rule of Evidence 201. ECF No.
22.
This request is similar to one previously filed by the
Jaakolas’ former counsel and asks the court to take judicial notice
of many of the facts alleged in the complaint.
ECF No. 17.
Because the court dismisses this action with prejudice, it does not
consider the request.
3

thereon, adverse to the person bringing the action ....”
Stat. § 559.01.

Minn.

The court finds that the complaint contains only

mere allegations and conclusory statements regarding the Jaakolas’
possession of the property and the invalidity of any adverse claim.
See Montero v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 13-cv-850, 2014 WL 562506, at
*4 (D. Minn. Feb. 13, 2014)(noting that such unsupported statements
are “precisely of the nature rejected by the Eighth Circuit”).
Thus, the Jaakolas’ objection is without merit.
The Jaakolas next argue that the Assignment from MERS to BONYM
is void because it occurred five years after the closing date of
the Trust.

This objection is also meritless.

As noted by the

magistrate judge, courts often enforce PSAs that, like here, do not
require assignments to be prepared or delivered to the trust if
MERS is the named nominee and is listed as the mortgagee.

See,

e.g., Wolff v. Bank of New York Mellon, 997 F. Supp. 2d 964, 973
n.4 (D. Minn. 2014)(citing cases).

Moreover, even if delivery was

required under the terms of the PSA, the delivery date is “not
relevant to the validity of [BONYM’s] interest under the Minnesota
Recording Act.”

Anderson v. Countrywide Home Loans, No. 10-2685,

2011 WL 1627945, at *4 (D. Minn. Apr. 8, 2011).
Finally,

the

Jaakolas

object

to

the

magistrate

judge’s

interpretation of New York law in determining that the Assignment
was not void even though it occurred after the closing date of the
Trust. The Jaakolas point to a single unpublished case, which held

4

that a post-close delivery in violation of a similar PSA was void.
See Wells Fargo v. Erobobo, No. 31648, 2013 WL 1831799 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct. Apr. 29, 2013).

The magistrate judge properly observed that

the holding and reasoning in Erobobo is widely rejected.

See,

e.g., Anh Nguyet Tran v. Bank of New York, No. 13-580, 2014 WL
1225575, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2014); Butler v. Deutsche Bank
Trust Co. Am., 748 F.3d 28, 37 n.8 (1st Cir. 2014); Felder v.
Countrywide Home Loans, Civ. No. H-13-0282, 2013 WL 6805843, at *19
n.170 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 20, 2013).

As a result, the Jaakolas’

objections are overruled.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiffs’ objections [ECF No. 21] to the magistrate

judge’s report and recommendation are overruled;
2.

The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [ECF No.

19] is adopted in its entirety; and
3.

Plaintiffs’ complaint [ECF No. 1-1] is dismissed with

prejudice.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY
Dated:

September 29, 2014
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court

5