Lansing v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 17-1067 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment for Wells Fargo in a third lawsuit arising between the parties involving the foreclosure of plaintiff's property. Plaintiff alleged that the bank violated Minn. Stat. 582.043 when it continued with foreclosure proceedings after he had submitted an application for a loan modification, and Wells Fargo brought a counterclaim against him for breach of a prior settlement agreement. The court held that plaintiff's claim was barred by res judicata because he could have brought the claim during the 2013 foreclosure litigation and he had an opportunity to litigate the claim fairly and fully if he had timely raised it. The court also held that the district court did not err in granting judgment on the pleadings for Wells Fargo on the bank's counterclaim where plaintiff was not discharged from his obligation to perform under the settlement agreement. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend on futility grounds.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Murphy, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Foreclosure. This opinion is being issued by Chief Judge Smith and Judge Colloton under 8th Cir. R. 47E following Judge Murphy's death. Plaintiff's claim that the defendant violated Minn. Stat. Sec. 582.043 when it continued foreclosure proceedings after plaintiff had submitted an application for a loan modification was barred by res judicata, as he was not prevented from bringing the claim during 2013 foreclosure litigation and he had an opportunity to litigate the claim fairly and fully if he had timely raised it; the district court did not err in granting the defendant summary judgment on its claim that plaintiff had breached the parties' settlement agreement; no abuse of discretion in denying, on futility grounds, plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint.
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.