Saturday, January 23, 2010

Mortgage Can't be Avoided by Bankruptcy Court After State Court Foreclsoure Default Order

In Calabria v. CIT Consumer Group (In re Calabria), 20 CBN 212 (Bankr. W.D.Pa 2009), the court dismissed the debtors' complaint to strip-off a mortgage because it found that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to do so. The court found that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precluded the bankruptcy court from considering whether a mortgage on the debtors’ home was invalid after a state court judgment of foreclosure had been granted on the mortgage.

The facts of the case showed that debtors executed two notes and mortgages on their principal home. The junior mortgage was assigned to a third party, which filed a foreclosure action against debtors after the debtors defaulted on the second loan. The junior mortgagee obtained a default judgment against debtors in the mortgage foreclosure case.

Shortly thereafter, debtors filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy relief. Debtors petitioned the court to avoid the mortgagee’s junior lien because the recorded mortgage referenced the wrong address or contained no legal description. Debtors argued that state law required that a valid mortgage describe the property sufficiently to enable it to be located and identified. If the mortgage was invalid, there could be no foreclosure.

Nevertheless, the bankruptcy court rejected debtors’ argument stating that any ruling that the mortgage instrument was defective would be tantamount to the bankruptcy court concluding that the state court foreclosure judgment was “erroneously entered.” After al, the debtors’ complaint expressly requested that the bankruptcy court strike the junior mortgagee’s secured claim and issue an order to the state court requesting that the state court strike the judgment in mortgage foreclosure.

The bankruptcy court found that if it were to grant the requested relief, then it clearly would have the effect of negating the state court judgment. Under those circumstances, the bankruptcy court concluded that the affirmative claim asserted in debtors’ complaint was “inextricably intertwined” with the state court judgment rendered against debtors. So, the bankruptcy court found that debtors were requesting that the bankruptcy court do precisely what Rooker-Feldman prohibited: to undo the effect of the state court judgment. The bankruptcy court refused to do so and dismissed the case.

Warmest Regards,

Bob Schaller

Your Bankruptcy Advisor Blog
By: Attorney Robert Schaller (Bob's bio) of the Schaller Law Firm
Click for Bankruptcy Lawyer Job Opportunities.

Bob is a member of the National Bankruptcy College Attorney Network, American Bankruptcy Institute and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.

I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to this blog by completing the box to the right of this post so you will automatically receive future blog postings. Next, you can review past and future blogs at any time by clicking the "archive" link in the column to the right of this posting. Plus, you are invited to submit a question by utilizing the "question" box in the column to the right of this posting.

For information about Chapter 7 bankruptcy Click Here

For information about Chapter 13 bankruptcy Click Here

You are invited to contact Attorney Schaller at 630-655-1233 or visit his website at learn about how the bankruptcy laws can help you.

NOTE: Robert Schaller looks forward to the opportunity to talk with you about your legal issues. But please remember that all information on this blog is for advertising and general informational purposes only. Please read Bob's disclaimer.

I recommend that you review a few other blogs that may be of interest to you. These blogs are identified in the right column and are set forth below: bankruptcy issues blog; bankruptcy and family law issues blog; bankruptcy and employment issues blog; and bankruptcy and student loan issues blog.

No comments:

Post a Comment