2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-21-2007 

# O sc ar v . B ank O ne N

A P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-1921

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " O s car v . B ank One NA" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1444. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1444T h e H o n o rab le D av id D . D o w d , Jr. , U n it ed S tat es D istri ct Ju d g e f o r th e N o rth ern * D i s t r i ctof O hi o, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 06- 1921

____________ CATHER I NE A. OSC AR; ALVI N D. OSC AR, A p p e llan ts v. B A N K O N E , N .A .; H O M E L O A N F IN A N C IA L , IN C ., d o i n g b u s i n e s s a s HLF

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 05- cv- 05928) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ohn R . Padova

____________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February16, 2007 B e f o re : S M IT H a n d F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudges , a n d DOWD, D is tr i ct Judge . * ( Fi l ed: M ar ch 21, 2007)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________2

F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . A l vi n and C ather i ne O s carbr oughtan ac t i on agai ns tB ank O ne, N . A . ( “B ank O n e ” ) a n d o th e rs s e e k in g th e re sc iss io n o f th e ir h o m e m o rtg a g e o n th e g ro u n d th a t it v io la te d th e T ru th in L e n d in g A c t ( “ T IL A ” ), 1 5 U .S .C . § 1 6 0 1 , et s eq. T h e D istri ct C o u rt g ra n te d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f B a n k O n e , a n d th e O s c a rs a p p e a l th a t ru lin g . H o w e v e r, b e c a u se w e f in d th a t th e re is n o f

in a l o rd e r w ith re sp e c t to H o m e lo a n F in a n c ial, I nc. ( “H om el oan Fi nanci al ”) , anotherpar t yi n t he ca s e, w e w i l l di s m i s s t hi s appea l for l ack of j ur i s di ct i on. I. O n F e b ru a r y8 , 2 0 0 2 , t h e O s c a r s r e f i n a n c e d t h e i rh o m e m o r t g a g e w i t h WMC M o rtg a g e C o rp o ra tio n . T h e lo a n w a s h e ld b yB a n k O n e d u rin g th e p e rio d re lev a n t to th is cas e. A l vi n O s car , w ho w as a phy s i ci an, s ubs equent l ys uffe r ed hea l t h pr obl ems thatl eft hi m w i t houta j ob. A s a r es ul t , t he O s car s defa ul t ed on thei rl oan, and B ank O ne i ns t i tut ed a mor t gage f

or ecl os ur e ac t i on i n M ar ch 2004. I n A pr i l 2004, t he O s car s s enta l et t ert o B ank O ne and other s s eeki ng t o r es ci nd th e ir lo a n . In Ju n e o f

th a t y e a r, C a th e rin e O sc a r f iled a C h a p ter 1 3 b a n k ru p tcy pe tit io n in t he B ankrupt cyC our tfort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a. B efor e thatcour t , t he O s car s i ni t i at ed an a dver s arypr ocee di ng agai ns tB ank O ne, W M C M or t gageT h e B a n k ru p t c yC o u r tg r a n t e d a m o t i o n f o rd e f a u l tj u d g m e n ta g a i n s tW MC 1 M or t gage Corpor at i on, and as s es s ed damages on M ar ch 25, 2005. 3 Corp o r a t i o n , a n d Home l o a n Fi n a n c i a l , s e e k i n g th e r e s c i s s i o n o f t h e i rl o a n u n d e rTI LA 1 and s t atut or ydamages forB ank O ne’ s fai l ur e t o r es ci nd. A m ong ot hert hi ngs , t hey c laim e d th a t B a n k O n e h a d v io late d T IL A b y(1 ) n o t p ro p e rlyd isc lo sin g th e v a ria b le- ra te fea tur e of thei rl oan, and ( 2) notacc ur at el ydi s cl os i ng t he fi nance char ge theyw oul d i ncur i n connec t i on w i t h t he l oan. In S ep tem b er 2 0 0 5 , the O sca rs’ ba n k rup tcyca se w as d ism issed , an d the a d v ersa ry pr ocee di ng w as r efe r r ed t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tpur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1631. A tt he t i m e, t he B ankrupt cyC our thad i s s ued a de faul tj udgm entagai ns tH om el oan Fi nanci al , buthad n o t y et de term ined the a m o u n t of d am ag es. O n F eb rua ry1 7 , 2 0 0 6 , the D istri ct C o u rt e n ter e d su m m a ryju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f B a n k O n e o n a ll o f

th e O sc a rs’ c laim s. T h is appea l fol l ow ed. II. Be f o r e we ma yc o n s i d e rt h e me r i t s o f t h i s c a s e , we mu s ts a t i s f yo u r s e l v e s t h a twe h a v e ju risd ictio n . A lth o u g h n e ith e r p a rtyra ise s a n yju risd ictio n a l issu e in th is c a se , itis o u r o b lig a tio n to ra is e it s u a s p o n te . A daptof P hi l adel phi a v. P hi l adel

phi a H ous i ng A u th o rity , 433 F. 3d 353, 361 n. 10 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . W e conc l ude thatt her e i s no fi nal appea l abl e or derunder28 U . S. C . § 1291.4

As we h a v e e x p l a i n e d , “ [ a ] j u d g me n ti s f i n a l a n d a p p e a l a b l e u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1291 i f i t‘ ends t he l i t i gat i on on t he mer i t s and l eave s not hi ng fort he courtt o do but exec ut e the j udgm ent . ’ ” Mar i t i m e El ec. C o. , I nc. v. U ni t ed Je rs ey Bank , 959 F. 2d 1194, 1208 ( 3d C i r . 1991) ( quot i ng G ul f s tr eam A er os

pace Corp. v. Mayacam as C or p. , 48 5 U. S. 271, 275 ( 1988) ( quot i ng C at l i n v. U ni t ed Stat es , 324 U . S. 229, 233 ( 1945) ) ) . Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 54( b) pr ovi des t hat“the courtm aydi r ectt he entr yof a f i nal j udgm entas t o one orm or e butfew ert han al l of the cl ai m s orpar t i es onl yupon an expr es s det erm i nat i on t hatt her e i s no j us tr eas on fordel ayand upon an e xpr es s di r ect i on fort he entr yof j udgm ent . ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 54( b) . A bs enta R ul e 54( b) cert i fi cat i on, “a j udgm enti s fi nal onl yi f i tdi s pos es of al l of the cl ai m s of al l of the part i es . ” Ma r i t i me E l ec. C o. , I

nc. , 959 F. 2d at1208 ( quot i ng M at t erof V i tr eous St eel

P r oduct s C o. , 911 F. 2d 1223, 1230 n. 3 ( 7t h C i r . 1990) ) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ; Fed. R . C i v. P. 54( b) ( “[A ] nyor derorot herform of dec i s i on, how everdes i gnat ed, w hi ch adj udi cat es few er t han al l t he cl ai m s ort he r i ght s and l i abi l i t i es of fe w ert han al l t he part i es s hal l not term inate the ac ti o n as to an yo f th e c lai m s o r pa rt ies . . . . ”). U ndert hi s rul e, “a de ci s i on t hatfi xes t he part i es ’ l i abi l i t ybutl eave s damages uns peci fi ed i s notfi nal , and the adj udi cat i on of l i abi l i t yi s noti m m edi at el yappea l abl e. ” G en. Mot ors C or

p. v. N ew A . C . C hevr ol et

, I nc. , 263 F. 3d 296, 311 n. 3 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. F. & M. Schaef erB r ew i ng C o. , 356 U . S. 227, 233- 34 ( 1958) , and Sun Shi pbui ldi ng & D r

y D ock Co. v. B enef

i t s R evi ew B d. , 5 3 5 F . 2 d 7 5 8 , 7 6 0 (3d C ir .5

1 9 7 6 ) (p e r c u ria m )); se e a lso M a rs h a k v . T re a dw e ll , 240 F. 3d 184, 190 ( 3d C i r . 2001) (“ A f in d in g o f lia b ility th a t d o e s n o t a ls o s p e c if yd a m a g e s is n o t a f

in a l d e c is io n .” ). U n d e r th e se c irc u m sta n c e s, w e w ill e x e rc ise ju risd ictio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 o n ly w h e n a n o rd e r “ is n o t tec h n ica llyf in a l b u t re so lv e s a ll i ss u e s th a t ar e n o t p u re ly m i ni s t er i al . ” Mars hak , 240 F. 3d at190. H ere , the p arti es h av e e x p lai n ed in a lett er to this C o u rtthat the B an k rup tcyC o u rt fort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ent er ed a de faul tj udgm entagai ns tH om el oan F in a n c ial o n S e p tem b e r 2 0 , 2 0 0 4 . In th a t o rd e r, th e C o u rt sc h e d u led a h e a rin g to det erm i ne damages on M ay6, 2005. T hathear i ng w as cont i nued t o J une 10, 2005, and a g a in to S e p tem b e r 1 3 , 2 0 0 5 . H o w e v e r, ith a s y e t to tak e p lac e . In th e sa m e lette r, itis s t at ed that“[c ] ouns el forappel l ant s has advi s ed thathe ent er ed i nt o s et t l ement negot i at i ons w i t h a r epr es ent at i ve fr om H om el oan Fi nanci al , I nc. , butt hatno s et t l ement agr eementw as evers i gned. ” Thi s hi s t or yr efl ect s t he fa ctt hatno damages have be en as s es s ed aga i ns tH om el oan Fi nanci al , a part yt o t hi s act i on, and the di ffi cul t yr eac hi ng f in a lityo n th e c a lcu latio n o f d a m a g e s m ili tate s a g a in st th e c o n c lu sio n th a t th e iss u e is “pur el ym i ni s t er i al . ” See M ars hak , 2 4 0 F . 3 d at 19 1 (co n clud ing that a d istri ct co u rt ’s or dert hatfi xed l i abi l i t yand or der ed the def endant“t o acc ountt o [the pl ai nt i ff] fort he pr ofi t s he ea r ned i n eac h y ear , begi nni ng w i t h t he fi r s tactof i nfr i ngementi n 1970 and e n d in g w ith th e f

ir s t d a yo f

tr ia l te s tim o n yin th is c a s e ” w a s n o t “ m e re ly m in is te ri a l” ).6

T hus , att he curr entt i m e ther e i s no fi nal or derunder28 U . S. C . § 1291, and w e do not h a v e th e p o w e r to h e a r th e O sc a rs’ a p p e a l. III . Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l di s m i s s t hi s appea l forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on.