Brown v. Mortgage Electronic, et al., No. 12-3494 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, an Arkansas Circuit Clerk, filed suit against Lenders, alleging that they used the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) to avoid paying recording fees on mortgage assignments and deprived Arkansas counties of revenue. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's exercise of jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d). The court concluded that the district court properly found that plaintiff alleged a class action under CAFA and that the class for the illegal-exaction claim included all Arkansas taxpayers, and thus, properly exercised jurisdiction under CAFA; the district court did not err in refusing to dismiss or remand the state-law claims after dismissing the illegal-exaction class action claim; the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to abstain under Burford abstention; and the dismissal of the state law claims was appropriate under Rule 12(b)(6). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Civil case - Class Action Fairness Act. In action by an Arkansas county circuit clerk alleging various originators and servicers of loans used the Mortgage Electronic Registration System to avoid paying recording fees on mortgage assignments, the district court did not err in exercising jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act as plaintiff alleged a class action claim for illegal extraction, and the class for the claim was all Arkansas taxpayers; the district court did not err in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims and did not err in declining to abstain from deciding those claims; plaintiff's state law unjust enrichment and Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims failed to state a claim, and the district court did not err in dismissing them under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
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.