1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

TIMOTHY SMITH and 

KIMBERLY SMITH, 

 Plaintiffs, Case No. 15-cv-11558 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND/OR 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #3) 

On April 29, 2015, Plaintiffs Timothy Smith and Kimberly Smith 

(collectively, the “Smiths”) filed a Complaint in this Court against Defendant US 

Bank National Association, as Trustee of the Bank of America Funding 

Corporation (BAFC) 2007-4 (“US Bank”) (the “Complaint”). (See ECF #1.) The 

Smiths allege in the Complaint that they “had financial difficulties prior to May 

2013” and had “extensive discussions” with US Bank regarding “a mortgage 

modification for several months leading up to May 2013.” (Compl. at ¶¶ 14-15.) 

According to the Smiths, “[w]hile these modification discussions were taking 

place,” US Bank filed a judicial foreclosure action in Michigan state court, the 

state court entered a judgment of foreclosure, and US Bank foreclosed on their 

2:15-cv-11558-MFL-DRG Doc # 8 Filed 09/01/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 162
2

home. (Id. at ¶¶ 18-22.) The Smiths now ask this Court to set aside the 

foreclosure. 

 US Bank filed a motion to dismiss the Smiths’ Complaint, or, in the 

alternative, for summary judgment on the Smiths’ claims, on May 26, 2015 (the 

“Motion to Dismiss”). (See ECF #3.) US Bank first argued that the RookerFeldman doctrine barred the Smiths’ claims. “The Rooker-Feldman doctrine 

prevents a federal court from exercising jurisdiction over a claim alleging error in a 

state court decision.” Hall v. Callahan, 727 F.3d 450, 453 (6th Cir. 2013) (internal 

citation marks omitted). The doctrine therefore bars “cases brought by state-court 

losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the 

district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and 

rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indust. Corp., 

544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). US Bank explains that on April 24, 2014, Livingston 

County Circuit Court Judge Michael P. Hatty granted it a judgment of foreclosure 

with respect to the Smiths’ home mortgage. (See ECF #3-4.) Pursuant to that 

judgment, the Livingston County Sherriff sold the Smiths’ property at a 

foreclosure sale on October 29, 2014. (See ECF #3-5.) Judge Hatty thereafter 

entered an order in the state circuit court confirming the sale of the Smiths’ 

property on March 26, 2015. (See ECF #3-6.) Each of these actions took place 

2:15-cv-11558-MFL-DRG Doc # 8 Filed 09/01/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 163
3

before the Smiths filed their Complaint in this Court seeking to set aside the 

foreclosure. (See ECF #1.) 

 In their response opposing the Motion to Dismiss, the Smiths never 

mentioned the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, nor made any effort to counter US 

Bank’s showing that the doctrine barred their claims here. And at oral argument, 

when the Court asked the Smiths’ counsel for his response to US Bank’s RookerFeldman argument, counsel stated only that principles of equity should prevent the 

Court from applying the doctrine in US Bank’s favor. But counsel could not cite 

any authority to support the proposition that equity, standing alone, would allow 

the Court to ignore the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and he provided no other basis to 

reject US Bank’s argument that the doctrine applies with full force here. 

 In this case, a state court granted a judgment of foreclosure and entered an 

order confirming the sale of the Smiths’ home before the Smiths ever filed this 

action seeking to set the foreclosure aside. Thus, this is a “classic case for 

application of the Rooker–Feldman doctrine.” Colbert v. Federal Nat. Mortg. 

Ass’n, 12-cv-13844, 2013 WL 1629305, at *7 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 16, 2013) 

(dismissing claims “relating to the foreclosure process and eviction proceedings 

and seeking return of [] [p]roperty” because “[g]ranting this relief would require 

the Court to reverse the state court's judgment”). 

2:15-cv-11558-MFL-DRG Doc # 8 Filed 09/01/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 164
4

 The Court concludes that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars the claims that 

the Smiths have brought against US Bank in this action. Therefore, for the reasons 

stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that US Bank’s Motion to Dismiss 

(ECF #3) is GRANTED. 

       s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: September 1, 2015 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on September 1, 2015, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113

2:15-cv-11558-MFL-DRG Doc # 8 Filed 09/01/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 165