In this case, plaintiff has effectively pleaded himself out of court by admitting that he
defaulted on the mortgage on the property in question. (Compl. 17.) The property was
subsequently foreclosed, sold, and plaintiff was given a notice of eviction. (/d.) Given that,
plaintiff has no colorable claim to title. None of the other claims made or materials provided are
relevant given this fact. The materials plaintiff relies on fail to establish a colorable claim of title
on the part of the founder of MSTA to either the particular property foreclosed by defendants or
to plaintiff's more general claim. Neither an assertion of divine revelation nor a blank Torrens
form establish title to any property. Ford v. Witwer, 50 N.E.2d 714, 715 (Ill. 1943); 765 ILv.
Comp. STAT. 5/3 (2003). Further, plaintiff as an alleged beneficiary of the purported trust would
not have standing to bring such a suit. Starnes, 1993 WL 87711, at *2 (stating that a
“beneficiary’s interest in a land trust is in personal property and not real property”).

Given the alleged facts and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, the Court
concludes that plaintiff fails to state a claim to quiet title or assert ownership rights regarding the
property in question. Having found that plaintiff's state law claims must be dismissed with
prejudice, it is clear that plaintiff's purported claim under the Declaratory Judgment Act cannot,
standing alone, survive the motion to dismiss. As a result, defendant has established that there
are no set of facts under which plaintiff may prevail. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to

dismiss is granted,


2002). This is a liberal standard of review in which the complaint must be construed in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff, and all well-pleaded facts must be accepted as true, though this
does require more than a bare assertion of legal conclusions. Cozzi Iron & Metal, Inc. v. U.S.
Office Equip., Inc., 250 F.3d 570, 574 (7th Cir. 2001). Documents attached to a complaint are
considered part of the pleadings. Beam v. IPCO Corp., 838 F.2d 242, 244 (7th Cir. 1988). All
reasonable inferences are to be drawn in the plaintiff's favor. Cozzi, 250 F.3d at 574. Ina
diversity action, state law provides the substantive law while federal law provides procedural
law. Alper v. Altheimer & Gray, 257 F.3d 680, 688 (7th Cir. 2001) (“The proper role of a
federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction is to apply state substantive law... .”).

Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that MSTA is the rightful owner of 741 North
River Drive, Kankakee, Illinois as well as much larger territories. Where a person seeks to
declare himself a rightful owner of real property, the proper avenue is a suit to quiet title.

Starnes v. Premier Trust Servs., Inc., No. 93 C 20007, 1993 WL 87711, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 26,
1993); Lakeview Trust & Sav. Bank v. Estrada, 480 N.E.2d 1312, 1327 (Ill. App. Ct. 1985).

“It is fundamental in an action to quiet title that a plaintiff must recover on the strength of
his own title, although perfect title need not be established.” Starnes, 1993 WL 87711, at *3; see
Marlow v, Malone, 734 N.E.2d 195, 200 (ill. App. Ct. 2000); Lakeview, 480 N.E.2d at 1327. To
prevail, plaintiff must establish a superior title to that of defendants. Marlow, 734 N.E.2d at 200.
Where the plaintiff does not hold title, he cannot maintain an action for quiet title. Starnes, 1993
WL 87711, at *3 (“A plaintiff with no title cannot bring an action to remove a cloud upon
title.”); see Marlow, 734 N.E.2d at 200; LaSalle Nat'l Bank v. Kissane, 516 N.E.2d 790, 793 (Ill.

App. Ct. 1987); Lakeview, 480 N.E.2d at 1327.


CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [doc. no.

10-1]. All other pending motions are denied as moot. This case is hereby terminated.

SO ORDERED ENTERED: /2/ nf 63

HON. RONALD A.
United States Judge


Minute Order Form (069)

\e United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

nameatasintsnte | Ronald A. Guzman | tn dee

CASE NUMBER 03 C 4361 DATE 12/11/2003
CASE GREGORY A. SAMUELS EL vs. FAIRBANKS CAPITAL CORP., et al
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state brieffy the nature

MOTION: of the motion being presented.)

DOCKET ENTRY:

(1) Q Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) o Brief in support of motion due.

(3) Do Answer brief to motion due, . Reply to answer briefdue__.

(4) ia} Ruling/Hearing on setfor___—_—at

(5) o Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for}on__setfor____att

(6) Oo Pretrial conference{hetd/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on___setfor = at_

(a) a Trial[set for/re-set for] on___at

(8) a {Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to__at

(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to}

OFRCP4(m) OLocatRule 41.1 OFRCP41(a\1) OFRCP41(a)(2).

(10) = [Other docket entry} ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court grants
defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [doc. no. 10-1]. All other pending motions are denied as moot. This case
is hereby terminated.

(i) @ {For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court. «Document: -|

‘Number: *-

J

No notices required. umber of notices

co 1 2 2003

Notices mailed by judge's staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

a | Docketing to mail notices,
af |} Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge. yyn09 1a s1s10 “st
courtroom b
‘ gna 11 2a0e

° ica g2.38 Hd

cau cya neO3 NS | mse


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
GREGORY A. SAMUELS EL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. ) 03 C 4361
) nae
FAIRBANKS CAPITAL CORP., and ) : a 4
ALL OTHERS UNKNOWN TO ) Judge Ronald A. Guzman, % 2003
PLAINTIFF, ) Ku
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
In this diversity action, plaintiff, Gregory A. Samuels El, has brought suit seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202
(2003), against defendants Fairbanks Capital Corporation and all others unknown to plaintiff that
he is the rightful owner of 741 North River Drive, Kankakee, Illinois. Defendant Fairbanks
Capital Corporation moves to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(6)(6). For the reasons set forth below, the Court

grants the motion.

FACTS
Plaintiff is a member of the Moorish Science Temple of America (“MSTA”), which was
founded in Chicago in 1925 and incorporated in 1928. According to plaintiff, the founder of the
MSTA disclosed to his followers through his writings and sayings that it had been divinely
tevealed to him that his followers were to have dominion over territory “from North East and
South-West Africa, across the Great Atlantis even unto the present North, South, and Central

America and also Mexico and the Atlantis Islands.” (Compl. { 14.) To this end, the founder of

; IY


MSTA declared that he had put such property into trust for his followers and, according to
plaintiff, “divested himself of dominion and contro} of the deed when he left it with the Recorder
of Deeds, Cook County, Illinois without any qualifying words August 1, 1928.” (PI’s Answer to
Def’s Mot. Dismiss { 13.) In support of this, plaintiff has appended a variety of documents to
his Complaint and Answer including various writings and recorded sayings of the founder of
MSTA, multiple copies of the notice of incorporation of the MSTA, and blank Torrens title
forms. According to plaintiff, the trust was activated in May 2000, though he did not have
personal knowledge of it until July 2003. Plaintiff further states that there is ongoing litigation
over the entire purported grant in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, variously
0i-cv-0097 or 01-cv-0097.19.

Additionally, plaintiff admits that he defaulted on a loan for the property at 741 North
River Drive, Kankakee, Illinois in January 2002. (Id. { 17.) This default resulted in foreclosure
by defendant Fairbanks, followed by a sale of the property in May 2003 and a subsequent
eviction notice directed to plaintiff. (/d. 17.) It is these last actions by defendant that induced

plaintiff to file suit.

DI SIO
A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
does not test whether the plaintiff will prevail on the merits, but instead whether the plaintiff has
properly stated a claim for which relief may be granted. Pickrel v. City of Springfield, Ill., 4S
F.3d 1115, 1117 (7th Cir, 1995). A dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P, 12 (b)(6) is appropriate
only if “it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his or

her claim on which relief may be granted.” Hickey v. O ‘Bannon, 287 F.3d 656, 657 (7th Cir.