United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-2530

___________________________

Purnie Ray Peterson; Matthew R. Jaakola; Kristin M. Jaakola; Charles Jaakola;

Hamilton E. Girard; Lori J. Girard; Bradley Verne Nelson; James P. Gillach; Debra

K. Gillach; Riley L. Svihel; Harold J. Hansen; Cynthia L. Meissner; Michael

Meissner; True Xiong Yang; Cha Tou Yang; Jason Appel; Cindy Welch; Sergey P.

Krachenets; Laurie M. Lundeen; Michael P. Boie; Dina M. Boie; Michael W.

Cross; Debbie K. Rolfing; Paula T. Viehman; Scott A. Jacobsen; Julie A. Jacobsen;

Kenneth F. Northwick; Felicia Northwick; Cynthia J. DuBe; Robert M. DuBe;

Simeon Wiechmann; Christine Wiechmann; Scott D. Cole; Stephanie C. Cole

lllllllllllllllllllllAppellants

v.

CitiMortgage, Inc.; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; MERSCORP,

Inc.; EverBank; EverHome Mortgage Company; John Wedel; Wedel Home

Services, Inc.; Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation; Federal National

Mortgage Association; Usset, Weingarden and Liebo, P.L.L.P.

lllllllllllllllllllllAppellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota

____________

 Submitted: January 14, 2013

Filed: January 28, 2013 

____________
Before MURPHY, ARNOLD and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

Approximately thirty-five mortgagors appeal from the district court's1

 dismissal

of their claims against the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC) and

other financial institutions, the law firm of Usset, Weingarden & Liebo, P.L.L.P., John

Wedel, and Wedel Home Services, Inc. The mortgagors asserted twenty-one claims

under Minnesota state law related to the defendants' rights to the mortgages on the

mortgagors' homes. The district court had original jurisdiction over the claims against

the FHLMC under 12 U.S.C. § 1452(f), and exercised its supplemental jurisdiction

over the remaining claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). After the court granted the

defendants' motion to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim, see Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(b)(6), the mortgagors appealed. We affirm.

This is the latest in a string of substantially similar cases brought recently in

Minnesota, see Butler v. Bank of America, 690 F.3d 959, 962 n.3 (8th Cir. 2012), and,

applying de novo review to the district court's grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal

motion, seeCox v. Mortgage Elec. Regis. Sys., Inc., 685 F.3d 663, 668 (8th Cir. 2012),

we conclude that our recent precedents require a quick rejection of most of the claims

advanced in this case. We reject the mortgagors' argument that the district court

improperly dismissed their claims against the Usset law firm, see Murphy v. Aurora

Loan Servs., LLC., 699 F.3d 1027, 1031-32 (8th Cir. 2012), and their contention that

their complaint made out a Minnesota slander-of-title action, see Butler, 690 F.3d at

961, 962-63.

1

The Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota.

-2-
The mortgagors also argue that the district court erred in dismissing their claims

against the financial institutions: They assert that their complaint made out a quiet

title claim under Minn. Stat. § 559.01. The Minnesota quiet title statute provides,

"Any person in possession of real property ... or any other person having or claiming

title to vacant or unoccupied real property, may bring an action against another who

claims ... a lien thereon, adverse to the person bringing the action, for the purpose of

determining such adverse claim and the rights of the parties, respectively." Minn.

Stat. § 559.01. Construing a predecessor statute with virtually identical language, the

Minnesota Supreme Court has held that a complaint that fails to "state, either that

plaintiff was in possession, or that the land was vacant," is "demurrable, as not stating

facts sufficient to constitute" a quiet title action. Conklin v. Hinds, 16 Minn. 457

(1871); see Murphy v. Hinds, 15 Minn. 182, 184 (1870). Not only did the mortgagors

not plead that they were in possession of the properties, but their complaint implied

that at least one of them was in fact not in possession: It alleged that one of the

defendants "put" one of the mortgagors "out of her home in a forcible manner by

removing her personal property," see Compl. ¶ 222, and "thereafter forcibly kept [the

mortgagor] out of her home by changing the locks," see id. at ¶ 223. The mortgagors,

moreover, did not plead that they "hav[e] or claim[] title to vacant or unoccupied real

property." Minn. Stat. § 559.01. Therefore, the mortgagors did not make out a quiet

title claim, and the district court properly dismissed their claims against the financial

institutions.

The court invites the appellees to file a detailed bill of costs, fees, and damages

for its consideration.

Affirmed.

______________________________

-3-