Antonio and Kathlene Mareno obtained a home mortgage from Dime Savings Bank. The terms of the mortgage required them to pay their property taxes directly to the local tax collector. However, if they failed to do so, the mortgage allowed the lender to pay the property taxes, add the property tax amount to the mortgage balance, and adjust the monthly mortgage payment.

The borrowers allegedly failed to pay their property taxes for 2002 and 2003. As a result, Dime Savings paid the property taxes and increased the monthly mortgage payment from $754 to $1,268. The Marenos made one payment of $754 after the increase and then stopped making any mortgage payments.

Purchase Bob Bruss reports online.

In 2004, Dime Savings filed a complaint against the Marenos to foreclose on the mortgage. The state court then granted a summary judgment allowing the foreclosure.

The Marenos made several state court appeals of the foreclosure, which were denied.

Then in November 2005 the Marenos sued Dime Savings in U.S. District Court, alleging the state trial court’s handling of their case violated their federal due-process rights. Dime Savings argued the foreclosure issue was already decided in the state court and the homeowners don’t have a right to litigate the same issue again in federal court.

If you were the U.S. District Court judge would you rule the Marenos can challenge the state trial court foreclosure judgment in federal court?

The judge said no!

The jurisdiction of U.S. District Courts is strictly original and there is no right to appeal state court due-process claims except to the U.S. Supreme Court, the judge began.

Furthermore, a federal due-process claim under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution can only be brought against a defendant acting under authority of state law, and there was no such evidence here because Dime Savings is a private business corporation, the judge explained.

The Marenos already had their right to litigate and appeal the foreclosure judgment in state courts, the judge ruled. They failed to prove a federal denial of due-process claim, so this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the foreclosure may proceed, the judge concluded.

Based on the 2006 U.S. District Court decision in Mareno v. Dime Saving Bank, 421 Fed.Supp.2d 722.

(For more information on Bob Bruss publications, visit his
Real Estate Center
).

Show Comments Hide Comments

Comments

Sign up for Inman’s Morning Headlines
What you need to know to start your day with all the latest industry developments
Success!
Thank you for subscribing to Morning Headlines.
Back to top
Real estate news and analysis that gives you the inside track. Subscribe to Inman Select for 50% off.SUBSCRIBE NOW×
Log in
If you created your account with Google or Facebook
Don't have an account?
Forgot your password?
No Problem

Simply enter the email address you used to create your account and click "Reset Password". You will receive additional instructions via email.

Forgot your username? If so please contact customer support at (510) 658-9252

Password Reset Confirmation

Password Reset Instructions have been sent to

Subscribe to The Weekender
Get the week's leading headlines delivered straight to your inbox.
Top headlines from around the real estate industry. Breaking news as it happens.
15 stories covering tech, special reports, video and opinion.
Unique features from hacker profiles to portal watch and video interviews.
Unique features from hacker profiles to portal watch and video interviews.
It looks like you’re already a Select Member!
To subscribe to exclusive newsletters, visit your email preferences in the account settings.
Up-to-the-minute news and interviews in your inbox, ticket discounts for Inman events and more
1-Step CheckoutPay with a credit card
By continuing, you agree to Inman’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

You will be charged . Your subscription will automatically renew for on . For more details on our payment terms and how to cancel, click here.

Interested in a group subscription?
Finish setting up your subscription