Court Opinion

ID: 9906606
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-04 19:00:56.497983+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:15.876852
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11962    Document: 71-1     Date Filed: 12/04/2023   Page: 1 of 7

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-11962
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       MARIAN S. A. TIPP,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       JPMC SPECIALTY MORTGAGE, LLC,
       JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
       CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC,

                                                 Defendants-Appellees.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Southern District of Alabama
USCA11 Case: 22-11962      Document: 71-1        Date Filed: 12/04/2023   Page: 2 of 7

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  22-11962

                     D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-00317-TFM-N
                           ____________________

       Before JORDAN, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Marian Tipp, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
       (1) grant of summary judgment based on res judicata and (2) pre-
       filing injunction for future lawsuits of the same nature. Ms. Tipp
       argues that her due process rights were violated when the court
       denied her rights to a family property lost in foreclosure to appel-
       lees—various JP Morgan Chase (“JPMC”) entities—during the
       Great Recession. We affirm.
                                             I
                                            A
              In 2009, JPMC executed a foreclosure sale of the subject Al-
       abama property—then owned by Ms. Tipp’s sister, Carolyn Sims—
       at which it became the new owner. As the new owner, JPMC filed
       an ejectment action against Ms. Sims in the Circuit Court of Mobile
       County, Alabama. Ms. Sims then executed and recorded a quit-
       claim deed purporting to convey the property to Ms. Tipp. With
       aid of counsel, Ms. Tipp attempted to intervene in the ejectment
       action, raising claims against JPMC for wrongful foreclosure, slan-
       der of title, trespass, and trespass to chattels. The state court dis-
       missed her claims. JPMC subsequently voluntarily dismissed the
       ejectment action without prejudice upon learning that the prop-
       erty had been vacated.
USCA11 Case: 22-11962       Document: 71-1         Date Filed: 12/04/2023     Page: 3 of 7

       22-11962                 Opinion of the Court                            3

               Ms. Tipp has promised to “fight this until the day [she] die[s]
       or Jesus comes.” D.E. 68 at 20. Keeping true to her word, Ms. Tipp
       has litigated, with JPMC on the other side, her purported interest
       in the subject property virtually nonstop since 2009. Along the
       way, Alabama’s state courts—including the Alabama Supreme
       Court—have ruled against her several times. See Marian Tipps v.
       J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al., Case No. CV-2011-0139 (Ala.
       Cir. Ct. Sep. 16, 2011) (granting defendants’ motion for summary
       judgment), aff’d, 156 So. 3d 997 (Ala. 2013); Marian Tipps v. JPMC
       Specialty Mortgage LLC, Case No. CV-2018-000165 (Ala. Cir. Ct.
       Aug. 7, 2018) (granting defendant’s motion to dismiss with preju-
       dice), aff’d, 312 So. 3d 2 (Ala. 2019), cert denied 140 S. Ct. 1124 (2020).
               After Ms. Tipp initiated this federal action, the Alabama Su-
       preme Court affirmed a permanent injunction prohibiting her from
       filing future lawsuits regarding the subject property. See Tipp v.
       JPMC Specialty Mortg., LLC, 367 So. 3d 357, 364 (Ala. 2021) (“Tipp
       has pursued litigation against JPMC related to the foreclosure of
       the Grand Bay property almost continuously since 2009. The trial
       courts considering her claims have consistently entered judgments
       against her and have repeatedly explained that her claims have no
       merit. On multiple occasions, this Court has affirmed those judg-
       ments. As we have done before, we now affirm the judgment en-
       tered in favor of JPMC on the claims Tipp has asserted against it.
       We also uphold the permanent injunction entered by the trial court
       barring Tipp from reasserting the same or similar claims in the fu-
       ture.”).
                                               B
USCA11 Case: 22-11962         Document: 71-1          Date Filed: 12/04/2023          Page: 4 of 7

       4                          Opinion of the Court                         22-11962

              This is another case in the long line of Ms. Tipp’s failed law-
       suits related to the 2009 foreclosure of the subject property. This
       time, Ms. Tipp filed a 60-page complaint against a number of JP
       Morgan Chase entities titled “Declaratory Judgment Action to Re-
       cover Possession of Property.” D.E. 1. In it, she alleges that JPMC
       (1) denied her due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amend-
       ments, (2) violated the National Bank Act, (3) violated the civil pro-
       visions of the RICO Act, (4) committed common-law fraud and
       conspiracy, (5) committed trespass, and (6) improperly executed
       foreclosure proceedings as an unregistered foreign corporation.
               JPMC moved for summary judgment on res judicata grounds
       and filed for Rule 11 sanctions to obtain a pre-filing injunction
       against Ms. Tipp. A magistrate judge, after holding a hearing, is-
       sued a report recommending that both motions be granted. The
       district court adopted the report and overruled Ms. Tipp’s objec-
       tions. The district court enjoined Ms. Tipp from filing “any law
       suits related to the 2009 foreclosure of the property at 11101 Ben
       Hamilton Road, Grand Bay, Alabama, and the litigation it gener-
       ated, without obtaining prior leave of this Court.” D.E. 76 at 2. 1

       1 The full text of the injunction reads:

               Marian S.A. Tipp is hereby ENJOINED as follows:
               Marian S.A. Tipp shall not file any law suits related to the 2009 for-
               closure of the property at 11101 Ben Hamilton Road, Grand Bay, Ala-
               bama, and the litigation it generated, without obtaining prior leave of
               this Court. This limitation shall extend beyond these Defendants to
               any of their affiliates and apply to suits filed in either state or federal
               court. In order to acquire leave of Court, Tipp must file a petition
USCA11 Case: 22-11962         Document: 71-1         Date Filed: 12/04/2023          Page: 5 of 7

       22-11962                   Opinion of the Court                                 5

               This appeal followed.
                                              II
               Because res judicata determinations are pure questions of
       law, we review them de novo. See Norfolk S. Corp. v. Chevron, U.S.A.,
       Inc., 371 F.3d 1285, 1288 (11th Cir. 2004). “Pro se pleadings are held
       to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and
       will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v. United States,
       148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). Nevertheless, when an appel-
       lant fails to challenge properly on appeal one of the grounds on
       which the district court based its judgment, she is deemed to have
       abandoned any challenge of that ground, and it follows that the
       judgment is due to be aﬃrmed. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins.
       Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014).
              Rather than directly challenge the district court’s order on
       appeal, Ms. Tipp has chosen to largely argue the merits of her
       claims. Consequently, she has abandoned most of her challenge to
       the district court’s application of res judicata. See Timson v. Sampson,
       518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). As to the pre-ﬁling injunction,
       Ms. Tipp abandoned her challenge altogether. What follows then
       is an abbreviated res judicata analysis.

               demonstrating that (1) the suit to be filed is not barred by res judicata;
               and (2) the court has subject-matter jurisdiction. These restrictions do
               not apply to any further filings in this suit or an appeal from this case.
               This injunction does not apply to an appeal from this case.
       D.E. 76 at 2.
USCA11 Case: 22-11962        Document: 71-1        Date Filed: 12/04/2023        Page: 6 of 7

       6                         Opinion of the Court                     22-11962

               When a federal court “is asked to give res judicata eﬀect to a
       state court judgment, it must apply the ‘res judicata principles of
       the law of the state whose decision is set up as a bar to further liti-
       gation.’” Amey, Inc. v. Gulf Abstract & Title, Inc., 758 F.2d 1486, 1509
       (11th Cir. 1985) (quoting Hernandez v. City of Lafayette, 699 F.2d 734,
       736 (5th Cir.1983)). Here, that state is Alabama. And in Alabama,
       the “elements of res judicata are (1) a prior judgment on the merits,
       (2) rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, (3) with substan-
       tial identity of the parties, and (4) with the same cause of action
       presented in both actions.” Equity Res. Mgmt., Inc. v. Vinson, 723 So.
       2d 634, 636 (Ala. 1998). If all four elements are met, “then any
       claim that was, or that could have been, adjudicated in the prior action
       is barred from further litigation.” Id. (emphasis added). 2
               Construing Ms. Tipp’s brief broadly, she challenges only the
       district court’s application of the ﬁrst two elements of res judicata.
       Ms. Tipp argues that because JPMC voluntarily dismissed the 2009
       ejectment action (in which her claims were dismissed), that case
       was not a judgment on the merits issued by a court of competent
       jurisdiction. See, e.g., Appellant’s Br. at 49. Alternatively, Ms. Tipp
       appears to argue that, because JPMC never acquired proper title in
       the ﬁrst place, the 2009 ejectment action was “a nullity.” Id.
              The problem for Ms. Tipp is that even if we set aside the
       2009 ejectment action, she still has two other adverse judgments on
       the merits—both of which have been aﬃrmed by the Alabama

       2 The magistrate judge and the district court applied Alabama cases on res ju-

       dicata.
USCA11 Case: 22-11962       Document: 71-1         Date Filed: 12/04/2023   Page: 7 of 7

       22-11962                Opinion of the Court                           7

       Supreme Court. Looking at her 2011 lawsuit alone, the Circuit
       Court of Mobile County, Alabama, entered summary judgment in
       favor of JPMC on all of Ms. Tipp’s claims. In that case, Ms. Tipp
       alleged (1) wrongful foreclosure, (2) slander of title, (3) trespass, (4)
       trespass to chattel, and (5) fraud on the court, and sought a declar-
       atory judgment that she was the lawful owner of the subject prop-
       erty. Ms. Tipp does not point to any evidence, nor is there any rea-
       son to believe, that Alabama’s courts lacked jurisdiction to enter
       judgments on the merits regarding the ownership of property in
       Alabama.
                                             III
              We aﬃrm (1) the district court’s order granting summary
       judgment in favor of JPMC on res judicata grounds and (2) the im-
       position of a pre-ﬁling injunction against Ms. Tipp.
              AFFIRMED.