United States District Court, D. Maryland
GWEN D. MICKERSON, Plaintiff,
AMERICAN BROKERS CONDUIT, EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, STRUCTURED ASSET MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS II, INC. CITIBANK, N.A., as Trustee for Securitized Trust Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II Trust 2007-AR7 Trust, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM and DOES 1 THROUGH 100 INCLUSIVE, Defendants.
THEODORE D. CHUANG, United States District Judge
March 3, 2017, self-represented Plaintiff Gwen D. Mickerson
filed the above-captioned lawsuit in the Circuit Court for
Prince Georgess County, Maryland, along with an Application
for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and
Declaratory Relief (the "Applicaiion"). Defendants
Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II, Inc.
("SAMI",, Citibank, N.A., as Trustee for
Securitized Trust Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II
Trust 2007-AR7 Trust ("Citibank",, Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo") and Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS") removed the
case to this Court on April 21, 2017. At the time of removal,
the Circuit Court had not yet ruled on the Application, and
it is now pending before this Court. For the reasons set
forth below, the Application is DENIED.
a resident of Maryland, is the owner of real property located
in Upper Marlboro, Maryland (the "Property".. On
July 13, 2007, Mickerson secured a $560, 000 mortgage loan
for the property by signing a Promissory Note in favor of
American Brokers Conduit (the "Mortgage".. In 2009,
two Notices of Default were filed in in Prince Georgess
County. In 2013, the Mortgage was assigned to Citibank, N.A.
as trustee for the Structured Access Mortgage Investments II
Trust 2007-AR7 (the "Trust"). In October 2016, two
Notices of Sale were filed with Prince Georgess County,
reflecting Defendants' intent to foreclose on the
Complaint alleges generally that the Defendants engaged in a
series of fraudulent transactions related to the mortgage
loan. According to Mickerson, because the Mortgage was
securitized, no interest in the Property was ever
transferred, so Defendants cannot prove that they possess any
valid interest in the Property. The Complaint alleges lack of
standing to foreclose, wrongful foreclosure, fraud in the
concealmen,, fraud in the inducemen,, unconscionabee
contract, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and
slander of title. Mickerson seeks to quiet title on the
property, enjoin Defendants from foreclosing, obtain a
declaratory judgment that Defendants lack any interest in the
Property that would permit them to foreclose, and recover
wrongfully collected fees. She seeks damages between $100,
000 and $2, 000, 000.
Application asserts that Defendants have initiated
foreclosure proceedings and that Mickersonss home will be
sold. According to Mickerson, the terms of the mortgage loan
were unclear, inconsisten,, and in violation of law. She
claims that the loan was underwritten without proper due
diligence, and that American Brokers Conduit sold her "a
loan product that it knew or should have known would never be
able to be fully paid back." Appl. at 4, ECF NO.4. She
further claims that "because of the securitization
process, Defendants and their predecessoss in interest failed
to properly assign Plaintiffs Note and Deed of Trust."
Id. at 6. She seeks a temporary restraining order
and injunction preventing Defendants from selling the
Property. Although the Application has been pending since
March 3, 2017, and although Defendants were served on March
22, 2017, Defendants have not filed a memorandum of law in
opposition to the Application.
extent Mickerson is asking the Court to halt pending
foreclosure proceedings in state court, the Court lacks the
power to provide the relief that Mickerson seeks. Under the
Anti-Injunction Act ("AlA"), this Court may not
grant "an injunction to stay the proceedings in a State
court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or
where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or
effectuate its judgments." 28 U.S.C. S 2283 (2012);
see also Tucker v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC,
83 F.Supp.3d 635, 641 (D. Md. 2015); Williams v.
Cohn, No. PX-16-2886, 2016 WL 4415058, at *2 (D. Md.
Aug. 19, 2016). Consequently, the Court cannot stay or enjoin
foreclosure proceedings involving the Property. Likewise, the
AlA bars a declaratory judgment that has the same effect as
an injunction. See Tucker, 83 F.Supp.3d at 641.
the AlA did not bar the Court from enjoining foreclosure of
the Property, Mickerson has failed to establish grounds for a
temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.
Temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions are
"extraordinary remedies involving the exercise of very
far-reaching power to be granted only sparingly and in
limited circumstances." MicroStrategy Inc. v.
Motorola, Inc., 245 F.3d 335, 339 (4th Cir. 2001)
(quoting Direx Israel, Ltd. v. Breakthrough Med.
Corp., 952 F.2d 802, 816 (4th Cir. 1991)). A party
seeking a temporary restraining order or a preliminary
injunction must show (1) a likelihood of success on the
merits; (2) the moving party will suffer irreparable harm in
the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of the
equities tips in the moving partyss favor; and (4)
preliminary injunctive relief is in the public interest.
Winter v. Nat. Res. De!. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7,
case, Mickerson has not demonstrated that she will succeed on
the merits of her claim that Defendants lack an enforceable
interest in her home such that a preliminary injunction on
the sale of her home following foreclosure proceedings would
be warranted. Mickersonss claim centers on the argument that
because of the securitization of her loan, Defendants cannot
demonstrate an interest in the Property. However, "[i]t
is well established, in this Court and others, that 'as a
matter of law, securitization alone does not render a note or
deed of trust unenforceable and does not alter a borrowerss
obligation to pay back his or her loan.'" Danso
v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. PX-16-1396, 2016 WL
4437653, at *3 (D. Md. Aug. 23, 2016) (quoting Howes v.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. CV
ELH-14-2814, 2015 WL 5836924, at *26 (D. Md. Sept. 30,
2015)). Thus, even if Mickerson is correct that the loan was
securitized, that does not lead to the conclusion that she is
likely to be able to show that the Defendants lack any
interest in the Property. Likewise, the claim that Defendants
knew or should have known she could not afford the Mortgage
is not a basis to enjoin a foreclosure sale of the Property.
foregoing reasons, the Application for a Temporary
Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and ...