Case ID: f-appx_509/html/0563-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sylvia ADORNO; Todd Eberhardy; Lloyd C. Loftus; Karen L. Loftus; Chad J. Gibeau; Mindy Ann Holzer; Robert E. Knutsen; Patricia C. Knutsen; Steven J. Miller; Elainne M. McMahon-Miller; Mark L. Lutsey, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC.; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; MERSCORP, Inc.; Federal National Mortgage Association; Peterson, Fram & Bergman, P.A., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-2604.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 13, 2013.
    Filed: June 13, 2013.
    William Bernard Butler, Butler Liberty Law, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Richard Caldarone, Mayer & Brown, Washington, DC Maritoni Derecho Kane, Lucia Nale, Thomas V. Panoff, Mayer & Brown, Chicago, IL, John Lester Krenn, Gray & Plant, Minneapolis, MN, Jared Matthew Goerlitz, Peterson & Fram, St. Paul, MN, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Appellants are eleven homeowners (the Homeowners) who filed suit against Citi-Mortgage, Inc.; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; MERSCORP, Inc.; and Federal National Mortgage Association (the Lenders/Servicers) for unlawfully foreclosing or attempting to foreclose on their home mortgages. The Homeowners also filed suit against Peterson, Fram & Bergman, P.A. (the Law Firm), which they claim assisted with some of the foreclosures. The district court dismissed the Homeowners’ complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 12(b)(6). We affirm.

The Homeowners’ amended complaint asserted four claims against the Lenders/Servicers, one of which was also asserted against the Law Firm. On appeal, the Homeowners have abandoned all but their quiet title claim against the Lenders/Servi-cers under Minnesota Statute section 559.01. The district court dismissed the quiet title claim, concluding that it failed to satisfy the Rule 8 pleading standard. See D. Ct. Order of June 25, 2012, at 4-5. Notwithstanding this failure, the district court also concluded that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because it was based on the discredited show-me-the-note theory. See id. at 6-7. The Homeowners’ quiet title claim is identical to the claim we recently rejected in Karnatcheva v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 704 F.3d 545, 547-48 (8th Cir.2013). Because the Homeowners have done nothing to distinguish this claim from the one found lacking in Karnatcheva, we affirm the district court’s dismissal.

The judgment is affirmed. 
      
      . The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.