Murphy, et al v. Aurora Loan Services, et al, No. 12-1398 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs, Minnesota homeowners, alleged that neither Aurora nor MERS were entitled to foreclose on the properties at issue and that W&G knowingly made false representations regarding Aurora's authority to foreclose. The court held that the district court properly found that it had subject matter jurisdiction. The court also held that the district court was correct in determining that all of plaintiffs' claims against W&G lacked a reasonable basis in fact and law, therefore W&G was properly dismissed as fraudulently joined. The court partially reversed as to the dismissal of the quiet-title cause of action, but affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of all of plaintiffs' remaining claims.
Court Description: Civil case - Consumer law. District court did not err in determining a defendant was fraudulently joined or in dismissing the defendant from the suit; doctrine of prior exclusive jurisdiction does not apply to removal actions because the state court loses jurisdiction over a removed suit; two of plaintiffs' quiet-title theories (that the assignments of the legal title to the mortgages either were unrecorded or were executed by persons lacking legal authority) do not rely on the failure of the foreclosing party to produce the note, and the district court erred in dismissing the claims; request that the dismissal of the remaining claims be altered to a dismissal without prejudice rejected.
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.