Case: 19-10182 Date Filed: 10/02/2019 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-10182
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:18-cv-61269-WPD
JEROME MCDONALD,
WINSOME MCDONALD,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
SETERUS, INC.,
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION,
Defendants - Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(October 2, 2019)
Before MARCUS, ROSENBAUM, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 19-10182 Date Filed: 10/02/2019 Page: 2 of 4
Jerome and Winsome McDonald appeal the district court’s dismissal with
prejudice of their claim against Seterus, Inc. for violations of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601–2617 (2012). Although the
McDonalds also sued the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) for
breach of contract, on appeal they concede that claim is barred. We hold that
because the RESPA claim against Seterus is inextricably intertwined with a prior
state-court foreclosure judgment, the district court did not err in dismissing the
McDonalds’ claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine. 1
* * *
The parties are familiar with the litigation history of this case; we summarize
the facts and proceedings only insofar as they are necessary to explain the context
of our decision.
Before it was foreclosed, the McDonalds’ mortgage was held by Fannie Mae
and serviced by Seterus. The McDonalds contested the foreclosure action filed in
Broward County, Florida, primarily arguing that the parties had executed a loan-
modification agreement prior to foreclosure. The state court rejected the
McDonalds’ argument and entered judgment for Fannie Mae, and the property was
1
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine stems from two Supreme Court cases: Rooker v. Fidelity Trust
Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) and D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). See
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 283 (2005).
2
Case: 19-10182 Date Filed: 10/02/2019 Page: 3 of 4
sold. Following the ensuing denials of the McDonalds’ motions for
reconsideration, the state action became final for Rooker-Feldman purposes by
March of 2018, months before the McDonalds filed the federal action that
underlies this appeal. See Nicholson v. Shafe, 558 F.3d 1266, 1275 (11th Cir.
2009) (explaining when state-court actions become final under Rooker-Feldman).
Even in the wake of the state-court judgment, the McDonalds continued to
contest the foreclosure and sale. They sent three “Notices of Error” to Seterus,
disputing both the amount owed and the fact of foreclosure. When Seterus denied
the alleged errors, the McDonalds brought this action asserting that Seterus had
violated RESPA’s implementing regulations. See 12 C.F.R. § 1024.35 (2019).
Under RESPA, a mortgage servicer must investigate and respond to properly
submitted Notices of Error, and either correct them or determine that no error
exists. Id. at § 1024.35(e). Servicers are liable for any damages caused by a failure
to properly respond to a Notice of Error. See 12 U.S.C. § 2605(f). In the instant
case, among other damages the McDonalds seek the costs of defending the
allegedly wrongful state foreclosure action.
We review a district court’s application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine de
novo. Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 713 F.3d 1066, 1069 (11th Cir. 2013)
(citation omitted). Under the doctrine, a federal district court lacks jurisdiction to
review the final judgment of a state court. Id. at 1072 (citation omitted). The
3
Case: 19-10182 Date Filed: 10/02/2019 Page: 4 of 4
federal court is barred from adjudicating “a claim [that] was either (1) one actually
adjudicated by a state court or (2) one ‘inextricably intertwined’ with a state court
judgment.” Target Media Partners v. Specialty Mktg. Corp., 881 F.3d 1279, 1286
(11th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). This includes “cases in which a plaintiff seeks
damages . . . based on the issues related to the state case” rather than “relief that
would directly prevent the enforcement of a state court order.” Goodman ex rel.
Goodman v. Sipos, 259 F.3d 1327, 1333 (11th Cir. 2001).
Courts in our circuit have applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to dismiss
actions for lack of jurisdiction in similar circumstances—i.e., where a plaintiff
sought, in effect, to challenge state-court foreclosure judgments. See, e.g.,
Zaychick v. Bank of America, N.A., 146 F. Supp. 3d 1273, 1276–77 (S.D. Fla.
2015) (cataloguing cases). In the instant case, the McDonalds challenge the state
foreclosure action, in particular by seeking to recoup the costs of defending it. A
federal court could not find for the McDonalds without determining that the state
foreclosure—which was memorialized in a state-court judgment—was wrongful.
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine therefore applies, and the McDonalds’ complaint
was properly dismissed.
We affirm the district court’s dismissal of the McDonalds’ complaint for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
AFFIRMED.
4