Court concludes that MERS is not ”identical” to holder for Rooker-Feldman purposes

In Fritz v. GMAC Mortgage Corp., 07-C-1019 (E.D.Wis., July 17, 2008) the mortgagee, GMAC, obtained a judgment of foreclosure in an earlier state court proceeding brought in the name of MERS. In response to a subsequent federal TILA suit, GMAC argued that the _Rooker-Feldman_ doctrine precluded federal jurisdiction. A Wisconsin district court held that even if the non-party to the earlier state court judgment is in privity with the party to the judgment the _Rooker-Feldman_ doctrine is inapplicable. It noted that GMAC was not a party to the state court foreclosure judgment, MERS was. While MERS listed GMAC in the caption as the servicer, and while it appears that MERS was acting on behalf of GMAC as a nominee, MERS initiated the action as the plaintiff, not GMAC. There was also no indication that MERS and GMAC are identical entities. Nevertheless, the court dismissed the claims on _res judicata_ grounds.


  • Solomon Maman

    Solomon has nearly two decades of experience representing financial institutions, real estate investors and privately owned business entities. Solomon concentrates his practice in the areas of banking, consumer financial services, real estate, business law and related litigation and appellate practice.

Download Related Document