Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sullen v. Bray

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

October 23, 2017

ROBERT L. SULLEN, Plaintiff,
v.
JAY BRAY, et al., Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          DAN AARON POLSTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         On July 17, 2017, Pro Se Plaintiff Robert L. Sullen filed this action challenging the state court foreclosure of his property against everyone directly or indirectly connected to the state court case: the holder of the note/assignee of the mortgage and its CEO (Nationstar Mortgage LLC (“Nationstar”) and Jay Bray), the lawyers and law firm representing Nationstar in the state foreclosure case (Scott Casterline and Bradley Toman of Casterline, McNeill, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich Co. LPA), the purchaser of Sullen's home (Dennis Matson), Medina County Sheriff Tom Miller, Ken Detner of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, the U.S. Comptroller of Currency John C. Dugan, and SEC Commissioners Michael S. Piwowar and Kara M. Stein. Sullen alleges a scattershot of claims against “Defendants, ” “each Defendant, ” or “the applicable Defendants:” violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) 12 U.S.C. § 2601, the National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1710, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961, and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“OCSPA”), O.R.C. Chapter 1345, along with a host of common-law claims (negligence, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud/misrepresentation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy).

         In this federal complaint, Sullen challenges Nationstar's standing to bring the foreclosure proceeding against him in state court and asks this Court to enjoin the sale of his property (which was sold before he filed this case); he contests the validity of the assignment of his mortgage to Nationstar; he asks the Court to vacate and reverse the state court rulings resulting in the transfer of his interest in the property; he asks the Court to declare that he is the rightful holder of title to the property; and he seeks damages from “each applicable Defendant, ” no matter how remotely they may have been associated with the state foreclosure case.

         Sheriff Tom Miller has filed a Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and Jay Bray and Nationstar have filed a Motion to Dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1). (Respectively, Doc ##: 9, 13.) The Moving Defendants both contend, among other things, that this case is barred by res judicata and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.[1] The time for responding to these two motions has passed, and Sullen has not filed anything.

         I. FACTS

         On December 14, 2006, Plaintiff Robert L. Sullen executed a Note in the original amount of $134, 400.00 with Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB, a Federal Savings Bank. (Ex. 7-1 at 4-8.) The Note is endorsed in blank. (Id.) That same day, Sullen executed a Mortgage granting Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as mortgagee and nominee for Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB, its successors and assigns, a security interest in the property located at 1717 Station Rd., Valley City, OH 44280 (“the Property”). (Id. at 9-31.)

         A. The State Foreclosure Case

         On May 26, 2016, Nationstar, the holder of the Note and assignee of the Mortgage, filed a foreclosure action against Robert and Donna Sullen in the Medina County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas. Nationstar Mortg. LLC v. Sullen, Medina Cnty. Ct. Com. Pl. No. 16CIV0523. The complaint noted that the Sullens had filed a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy case in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio and were granted a discharge in that case in September 2010. Based on that discharge, Nationstar stated that it did not seek a personal money judgment against the Sullens on the Note, but a first lien on the Property. Id. Sullen filed an answer on August 11, 2016. The state court referred the case to the Mediation Department, but the Court Mediator's effort to mediate a resolution of the case proved unsuccessful. On November 22, 2016, Nationstar filed a Motion for Summary Judgment backed by evidence contending that it had demonstrated a prima facie case for judgment on its Note and foreclosure of its Mortgage. The state court set a deadline for Sullen to file his response on December 23, 2017. On December 28, 2016, after Sullen failed to respond to the Motion in a timely manner, the court granted the motion as unopposed. The court concluded that Nationstar was entitled to foreclose on the Property as a matter of law and, pending a three-day waiting period, directed the Medina County Sheriff to proceed without delay to appraise, advertise and sell the Property. The Property was sold on March 16, 2017.

         One month later, on April 17, 2017, Sullen filed a Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Judgment Entry Dated 12/28/2016 and Set Aside Sheriff Sale, contending that Nationstar lacked standing to sue him and arguing that the judgment was void because genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether, among other things, Nationstar violated the RESPA, the FDCPA, the OCSPA, and the National Housing Act. Nationstar opposed the motion on May 2, 2017 and, one week later, the court issued an opinion denying Sullen's motion. In doing so, the court characterized the motion as a motion for relief from judgment under Ohio Civ. R. 60(B) and articulated the applicable standard:

Generally, in order to prevail on a motion for relief from judgment brought pursuant to Civ. R. 60(B), the movant must demonstrate that: (1) the party has a meritorious defense or claim to present if relief is granted; (2) the party is entitled to relief under one of the grounds stated in Civ. R. 60(B)(1) through (5); and (3) the motion is made within a reasonable time. GTE Automatic Electric v. Arc Industries (1976), 47 Ohio St.2d 146, 351 N.E.2d 113, paragraph two of the syllabus.

Nationstar Mortg. LLC, Medina Cnty. Ct. Com. Pl. No. 16CIV0523, J. Entry-Denying Motion to Vacate etc., filed 09/May/2017, at 1. The court concluded that Sullen had failed to present any evidence showing that he had a meritorious defense to the foreclosure action; he had not presented any evidence that he was entitled to relief under one of the grounds stated in Rule 60(B)(1) through (5) (i.e., mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, fraud, misrepresentation, misconduct, or newly discovered evidence); and he did not file his motion within a reasonable time-observing that Sullen failed to explain why he waited 110 days after judgment was entered and one month after the sheriff's sale took place to file his Rule 60(B) motion. Id. at 1-3.

         Sullen did not appeal the state court's ruling.

         B. The Current Action

         Rather, on June 29, 2017, Sullen filed the within Complaint and Order for Injunction alleging claims challenging the state court foreclosure judgment against twelve Defendants, most of whom were tangentially involved in the state court foreclosure action. Among the Defendants are Nationstar Mortgage LLC, the state foreclosure plaintiff, and Medina County Sheriff Tom Miller, under whose auspices the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.