Riggins v. Wilmington Savings Funds and Society

Background

Dennis Riggins filed this federal action against Bayview Loan Services LLC, Carrington Mortgage Loan Services, M&T Bank, Upland Mortgage Acquisition Co. LLC, Wilmington Savings Funds and Society, and others. The opinion states that Riggins claimed he owned 72 Magnolia Avenue in Mount Vernon, New York, and that Wilmington and Upland wrongly claimed to own it. He alleged that Bayview, M&T Bank, and Carrington acted with Wilmington and Upland to fraudulently foreclose on the property.

The complaint asserted four causes of action: alleged fraudulent concealment concerning the defendants’ claimed lack of an original note and standing to foreclose; violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; violation of the Fair Reporting & Disclosure Act; and unjust enrichment. Riggins sought $5,000,000 in compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, plus fees and costs. The opinion identifies him as proceeding without a lawyer.

Before the federal case, Bayview brought a foreclosure action against Riggins and others in Westchester County Supreme Court. That court entered a foreclosure judgment in Bayview’s favor for $792,455.16, and later denied Riggins’s efforts to vacate the judgment. Riggins filed a state-court appeal, but the appeal was dismissed because it was not perfected.

Motions and Jurisdictional Ruling

Carrington, Upland, and Wilmington, together with Bayview and M&T Bank, moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court resolved the motions on the jurisdictional ground.

The defendants argued that the federal case was an attempt to attack the state foreclosure judgment and was therefore barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. That doctrine prevents federal district courts from reviewing state-court judgments as if they were appellate courts. The court explained that the doctrine applies when: (1) the federal plaintiff lost in state court; (2) the plaintiff complains of injuries caused by the state judgment; (3) the federal case asks the district court to review and reject that judgment; and (4) the state judgment came before the federal case.

The court found all four requirements satisfied. Riggins lost when the state foreclosure court entered judgment for Bayview. The court determined that each federal claim alleged an injury based on the foreclosure. It also found that deciding the claims would require the federal court to review whether the state foreclosure judgment was wrongly issued because the defendants allegedly lacked standing or had engaged in fraud. Finally, the state judgment was entered in 2018, before Riggins filed this federal action in January 2020.

The court further noted that Riggins had participated in the state foreclosure case, filed multiple requests challenging the foreclosure and the state court’s jurisdiction, moved to vacate the judgment, and began but did not complete a state appeal. The court stated that allegations of improper service, lack of jurisdiction, due-process violations, or fraud did not create an exception to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

Disposition

The court held that it lacked jurisdiction over all of Riggins’s claims because they were inextricably connected to the state foreclosure action. Judge Nelson S. Roman granted the defendants’ motions and dismissed the complaint. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the motions, terminate the action, mail a copy of the opinion and order to Riggins, and record service on the docket. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.