Mardelle Jerde v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, No. 12-1462 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case. Dismissal for failure to state a claim affirmed on the basis of this court's prior opinions in Karnatcheva v. J.P. Morgan, 704 F.3d 545 (8th Cir. 2013) and Murphy v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 699 F. 3d 1027 (8th Cir. 2012).
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-1462 ___________________________ Mardelle D. Jerde; Bennie Lee; Jennifer M. Campos; Michael Campos, formerly known as Miguel Campos; Sheldon Joppru; Kay Joppru; Dwight Bradley Reisenauer; Michelle Christine Reisenauer; Akom Lero; Abang Gowi; Donna M. Habeck; Kenneth G. Habeck; Darren J. Carlson; Kristel L. Carlson; Justin R. Herzog; Ciara D. Herzog; Derek A. Melichar; Melissa J. Melichar; Jeffrey D. Robinson; Debra L. Robinson; John E. Norris lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.; Chase Home Finance, LLC; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; Federal National Mortgage Association; Merscorp, Inc.; Shapiro & Zielke, LLP lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis ____________ Submitted: January 14, 2013 Filed: March 14, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. This is yet another in a long line of lawsuits brought by homeowners who have defaulted on their mortgages but claim that the entities asserting legal title to their mortgages do not have the authority to foreclose. In the instant case, twenty-one homeowners (collectively, the Homeowners ) filed suit against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.; Chase Home Finance, LLC; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; and MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. (collectively, the Lenders ) for unlawfully foreclosing or attempting to foreclose on their home mortgages. The Homeowners also sued the law firm of Shapiro & Zielke, LLP, which they claim assisted with some of the foreclosures. The district court1 dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. We affirm the district court. The Homeowners initially filed suit in Minnesota state court. The defendants removed the case to federal court, arguing that the only non-diverse defendant, Shapiro & Zielke, LLP, had been fraudulently joined. The Homeowners filed a motion to remand and also challenged the district court s subject matter jurisdiction under the doctrine of prior exclusive jurisdiction. The district court found that it had subject matter jurisdiction because the state court had not obtained prior exclusive jurisdiction and Shapiro & Zielke, LLP had been fraudulently joined. The claims underlying these challenges to federal subject matter jurisdiction are identical to ones we recently have rejected, and therefore we affirm the district court s finding. See Karnatcheva v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 704 F.3d 545, 546 (8th Cir. 2013); Murphy v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 699 F.3d 1027, 1031-32 (8th Cir. 2012). The Homeowners complaint asserted twelve different claims against the Lenders, but on appeal they have abandoned all but their claim to quiet title under Minnesota Statute section 559.01. See Murphy, 699 F.3d at 1033 n.4. The district court dismissed the entire claim as inextricably linked to the now discredited show- 1 The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2- me-the-note theory, which contends that the legal title holder to a mortgage must also produce the mortgagor s promissory note prior to foreclosure. See Jackson v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 770 N.W.2d 487, 500-01 (Minn. 2009) (rejecting the show-me-the-note theory). The Homeowners quiet-title claim is pled in terms virtually identical to the claims brought by the plaintiffs in Murphy and Karnatcheva. Some of the asserted bases for seeking to settle the so-called adverse claims to the properties under section 559.01 are indeed premised on the show-me-the-note theory. See Murphy, 699 F.3d at 1033. But two of the theories attack the Lenders legal title to the mortgage, rather than their possession of the promissory notes, and thus are distinct from the show-me-the-note theory. See Karnatcheva, 704 F.3d at 547-48 (recognizing that the theories [t]he Notices of Pendency, Powers of Attorney, and Assignments of Mortgages were not executed by an authorized individual and [t]he Assignments of Plaintiffs Mortgages were invalid were not foreclosed by Jackson s rejection of the show-me-the-note theory ). Karnatcheva held that these same grounds for seeking to settle adverse claims failed to meet the pleading requirements imposed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Karnatcheva, 704 F.3d at 548. The Homeowners have done nothing to distinguish their claims from those found lacking in Karnatcheva, and therefore we affirm the district court s dismissal for failure to state a claim. See Brannum v. Mo. Dep t of Corr., 518 F.3d 542, 546 (8th Cir. 2008) ( We review the district court s grant of summary judgment de novo and may affirm on any ground supported by the record. (internal citation omitted)). ______________________________ -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
