Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-13-02106/USCOURTS-ca8-13-02106-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-2106

___________________________

Prince Song Cambilargiu

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

Randal S. Brinkman; Carol M. Brinkman

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs

v.

Bank of America, National Association, as successor by merger to BAC Home

Loans Servicing, LP, fka Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP; Federal

National Mortgage Association; Great Southern Bank; Does 1-20

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis

____________

 Submitted: December 19, 2013

Filed: December 30, 2013

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 13-2106 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/30/2013 Entry ID: 4109486 
Prince SongCambilargiu appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint 1

and denial of injunctive relief. After careful de novo review, we affirm. See Levy v.

Ohl, 477 F.3d 988, 991 (8th Cir. 2007) (standard of review). 

Cambilargiu, Randal Brinkman, and Carol Brinkman filed this action in

Minnesota state court, and the named defendants removed the case to federal court. 

Plaintiffs claimed thatBank of America (BOA) unlawfullyforeclosed the Brinkmans’

mortgage because BOA did not hold valid title to the promissory note secured by the

mortgage; and that Cambilargiu redeemed the property under Minnesota Statute

§ 580.23, and paid the Brinkmans’ second mortgage with Great Southern Bank

(GSB), by tendering valid draft instruments to BOA and GSB.

We hold that the district court properly dismissed the claims challenging the

validity of BOA’s foreclosure. These claims were litigated in the Brinkmans’ first

lawsuit challenging BOA’s foreclosure, and thus were barred by res judicata. See

Brinkman v. Bank of Am., No. 11-cv-3240 (D. Minn. Aug. 17, 2012); see also

Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497, 508-09 (2001) (Minnesota

law governs res judicata analysis); Rucker v. Schmidt, 794 N.W.2d 114, 117-18

(Minn. 2011) (elements of res judicata). Moreover, the show-me-the-note theory

asserted in these claims has been routinely rejected by courts interpreting Minnesota

law. See Butler v. Bank of Am., 690 F.3d 959, 962-63 (8th Cir. 2012).

The district court also properly concluded thatCambilargiu’s draft instruments

were invalid because they were not drawn on a bank, contained no drawee, and

conditioned payment upon the passage of 50 years. See Minn. Stat. §§ 336.3-103,

336.3-104, 336.3-106. The documents instead were third-party promises to pay the

The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United StatesDistrict Judge for the District 1

of Minnesota.

-2-

Appellate Case: 13-2106 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/30/2013 Entry ID: 4109486 
Brinkmans’ debt in 50 years, which BOA and GSB were free to reject. Accordingly,

the claims premised on the validity of these drafts were properly dismissed.

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

-3-

Appellate Case: 13-2106 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/30/2013 Entry ID: 4109486