Court Appointed Selling Officer Is Entitled To Absolute Quasi-judicial Immunity From Lawsuit By A Person Claiming Interest In The Property Following The Foreclosure Sale

In El-Bey v. HUD, et al. (11-cv-72 N.D. IL Mem. Op. June 11, 2012), Plaintiff who was not the borrower but claimed an interest in the real estate brought a complaint in federal court against various parties involved in a completed foreclosure, including against the judicial selling officer appointed by the state court to administer the foreclosure sale. The Plaintiff sought to quiet title in the foreclosed property and damages under the state Consumer Fraud Act. The selling officer moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis that it was barred under the doctrine of absolute quasi-judicial immunity. Reviewing relevant precedent the district court recognized that judges are entitled to judicial immunity so that they can exercise their function with independence and without fear of consequences. It also recognized that quasi-judicial immunity is extended to non-judges performing ministerial acts pursuant to a court order, so as to prevent such person from becoming a lightning rod for harassing litigation aimed at the court. In dismissing the complaint against the selling officer, the district court relied upon the foreclosure court record which showed: (1) that the selling officer was appointed by the state court, (2) that the state court had set the duties of the selling officer, and (3) that the state court found that the selling officer had executed its duties as directed by the state court. Based on this evidence, the district court found that the selling officer was acting as directed by the state court and was therefore entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity from suit for its actions.

Download Related Document