United States Court of Appeals: For The First Circuit
United States Court of Appeals: For The First Circuit
United States Court of Appeals: For The First Circuit
No. 14-1448
DEBORAH A. LISTER; LEON ALAN BLAIS,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., in its own right and as successor by
merger to BAC Loan Servicing, Inc.; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL, INC., in its
own rights and as successor to American Home Mortgage Servicing,
Inc.; OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC,
Defendants, Appellees,
NEIL F. LURIA, in his capacity as Liquidating Trustee of Chapter
11 Estate of Mortgage Lenders Network, USA, Inc.,
Defendant.
Leon A. Blais, with whom Blais & Parent was on brief, for
appellants.
Maura K. McKelvey, with whom Marissa I. Delinks and Hinshaw
& Culbertson LLP were on brief, for appellees Mortgage Electronic
We affirm the
the
facts
as
alleged
in
the
complaint
and
documents
Appellants
take
issue
with
the
district
court's
consideration of certain land records that appellees appended to
their motions to dismiss below. Their argument is misplaced. The
district court acted well within its discretion when it examined
copies of land records that were expressly referred to in the
complaint. See Beddall v. State Street Bank & Trust Co., 137 F.3d
12, 16-17 (1st Cir. 1998). Their claim rings especially hollow in
light of the fact that they also attached documents to the
complaint suggesting that certain mortgage-related evidence did
not exist.
- 3 -
682 F.3d 40, 44 (1st Cir. 2012). In October 2000, Lister purchased
a parcel of property in Lincoln, Rhode Island, and recorded her
interest in the Town of Lincoln's Land Evidence Records.
In 2006,
Nevertheless,
Delaware,
Lister
received
notice
to
forward
her
mortgage
In November
and
Shortly
informed
thereafter,
her
that
Harmon
it
Law
Offices
represented
contacted
Countrywide
and
foreclosure
proceedings
until
- 4 -
Mr.
Blais
threatened
to
On November
The
Lister's
bankruptcy,
all
of
MLN's
documents
had
been
destroyed.
In
ruling
on
defendants'
motions
to
dismiss,
the
Lemelson
v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 721 F.3d 18, 21 (1st Cir. 2013) (internal
consider
documents
incorporated
by
reference
into
the
Freeman v. Town
of Hudson, 714 F.3d 29, 35 (1st Cir. 2013). Against this backdrop,
we turn to the appellate matters at hand.
III.
We start our analysis by quickly disposing of an array
of issues that appellants raise -- or fail to raise -- in their
briefs.
In so doing,
See
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Lister
fails
to
do
so
and
discovery
would
not
alter
that
conclusion.
Next, appellants suggest that rather than employing the
Rule 12(b)(6) legal framework described above, the district court
should have instead judged the complaint on what they call "the
extraordinarily low standard of [Rhode Island's] title quieting
statute."
17 (1st Cir. 2003) (citing Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 466-74
(1965)); see also Chhun v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc.,
84 A.3d 419, 422 (R.I. 2014) (acknowledging that the federal
standard for surviving motions to dismiss is more stringent than
the traditional Rhode Island standard).
As a final housekeeping matter, we note that while the
district court dismissed the complaint in its entirety, appellants
offer no argument with respect to Counts One ("Preliminary Relief")
- 8 -
unaccompanied
by
adverted
some
to
effort
at
in
perfunctory
developed
manner,
argumentation,
are
deemed waived.").
IV.
This leaves only Count Two, "Quieting of Title," before
us on appeal.
specific
case,
the
facts
alleged
in
the
complaint
In
are
the
legal
the
title,
which
becomes
the
mortgagee's
and
secures
Lemelson,
721
F.3d
at
23
(citing
Bevilacqua
v.
Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 547 F.3d 48, 52 (1st Cir. 2008) (noting
that, in a diversity case applying state law, "the federal court's
objective is not to choose the legal path it deems best, but,
rather, to predict what path the state court would most likely
travel").6
maintains
relinquished
an
legal
equitable
title
to
interest
it.
Her
in
the
But, while
property,
assertions
she
respecting
uncertainty over the mortgage speak solely to the legal title and
not to her equitable interest.
Lemelson, 721
and the mortgagee might be adverse in the sense that she disputes
Id. at 24.
V.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
- 13 -