Madura v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., No. 08-14413 (11th Cir. 8/17/2009)
| Decision Date | 17 August 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 08-14793.,No. 08-14413.,08-14413.,08-14793. |
| Parties | ANDRZEJ MADURA, Plaintiff ANNA DOLINSKA-MADURA, Plaintiff-Appellant v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., FULL SPECTRUM LENDING, INC., Defendants-Appellees. ANDRZEJ MADURA, Plaintiff-Appellant ANNA DOLINSKA-MADURA, Plaintiff v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., FULL SPECTRUM LENDING INC., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida; D. C. Docket No. 06-02073-CV-T-24-TBM.
Before TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON and HULL, Circuit Judges.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Andrzej Madura ("Mr. Madura") and his wife, Anna Dolinska-Madura ("Mrs. Madura"), filed a pro se complaint against Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. ("Countrywide") and Full Spectrum Lending, Inc. ("Full Spectrum"), alleging violations of Florida law and federal statutes governing consumer credit protection. This action arises out of a home loan the Maduras obtained from Full Spectrum that Full Spectrum then sold to Countrywide. In a nutshell, the Maduras claim that the defendants forged loan documents and fraudulently charged a prepayment penalty. Mr. Madura appeals pro se the district court's order dismissing his claims based on an arbitration agreement in the loan documents. Mrs. Madura appeals pro se the district court's order granting summary judgment to the defendants on her claims because, inter alia, she either already had or could have litigated them in an earlier Florida state court action. After review, we affirm.
According to the Maduras' complaint, in July 2000, Full Spectrum sent the Maduras loan documents, which they signed and sent back. On July 26, 2000, the Maduras and Full Spectrum closed the loan. Under the terms of the loan agreement, the Maduras borrowed $87,750 at an adjustable interest rate of 14.375 percent, secured by their principal residence.1
On July 31, 2000, Countrywide purchased the loan from Full Spectrum. In March 2001, the Maduras called Countrywide and requested to repay their loan in full. Countrywide informed them that a prepayment penalty applied and later sent them a payoff demand statement that included a $5,036.84 prepayment penalty.
The Maduras allege that the loan documents they signed did not include a prepayment penalty. According to the Maduras, Full Spectrum and Countrywide destroyed those documents, created fraudulent copies of certain documents, including a Truth In Lending Act ("TILA") disclosure statement and the adjustable rate note, and forged their signatures on these fraudulent documents. According to the Maduras, the forged documents contained conditions to which they never agreed, including a prepayment penalty.
In subsequent communications, the defendants refused to provide the Maduras with copies of the allegedly forged documents. The Maduras sent a notice to Countrywide demanding an immediate rescission of the loan agreement. The Maduras hired a forensic document examiner, who found that their signatures on the TILA disclosure statement and Mr. Madura's initials on the adjustable rate note were forged. The Maduras sent this report to Countrywide. In July 2001, Countrywide refused to rescind the loan agreement, claiming that Mr. Madura's initials on the promissory note were not forged and that all disclosures had been provided. Nonetheless, Countrywide agreed to waive the prepayment penalty.
The Maduras also alleged that they had filed a complaint in the Manatee County Circuit Court in Florida ("the state court action") against Full Spectrum and Countrywide seeking rescission of the loan agreement. The Maduras attached to their federal complaint copies of: (1) their state court complaint, which raised state law claims of forgery, uttering a forged instrument, usury, conspiracy and racketeering; (2) an amended state court complaint, filed by Mrs. Madura, which alleged state law claims of fraud and fraud in the inducement and federal TILA claims; and (3) the forensic document examiner's report. According to the Maduras' federal complaint, the state court compelled Mr. Madura to arbitrate his claims.
The Maduras' federal complaint contained nineteen counts based on essentially the same facts as the state court action. In eleven counts, the Maduras sought rescission of the loan agreement and statutory damages for alleged TILA violations. In eight counts, the Maduras sought rescission and damages for state law claims of failure to contract, forgery, fraud, fraud in the inducement, usury uttering forged bills and violating the Florida Communications Fraud Act ("FCFA").
Countrywide and Full Spectrum moved to dismiss the federal complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Alternatively, the defendants argued that the district court should order Mr. Madura to arbitrate his claims pursuant to the arbitration agreement in the loan documents.
Mr. Madura opposed arbitration, arguing that he was not bound by the arbitration agreement. Mr. Madura's argument hinged on the theory that there were two contracts. The "first contract" consisted of the loan documents he signed prior to and during the closing, and the "second contract" consisted of the documents with the prepayment penalty allegedly forged after the closing. Although somewhat difficult to follow, it appears Mr. Madura argued that the arbitration agreement he admittedly signed related to only the "first contract" and not the "second contract." Thus, according to Mr. Madura, he could not be forced to arbitrate his claims relating to this "second contract."
As to their Rooker-Feldman argument, the defendants submitted documents from the state court action indicating that the state court: (1) found that Mr. Madura's claims were subject to the arbitration agreement; and (2) granted summary judgment to Countrywide and Full Spectrum on Mrs. Madura's claims. The state court found that: (1) Mrs. Madura's TILA claims were barred by the one-year statute of limitations in 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e); (2) Mrs. Madura was not a "borrower" under the loan agreement and, thus, did not have standing to bring a usury claim; and (3) Mrs. Madura could not show damages for her fraud claims because it was undisputed that the defendants had waived the prepayment penalty.2
In this federal action, a magistrate judge issued a report ("R&R") recommending that the district court deny the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but grant the defendants' motion to compel Mr. Madura to arbitrate his claims. The R&R concluded that Mr. Madura was bound by the arbitration agreement, which he did not dispute he had signed, and that the arbitration agreement covered all of his claims. Over Mr. Madura's objections, the district court adopted the R&R, compelled Mr. Madura to arbitrate his claims, and dismissed his claims in favor of arbitration. In doing so, the district court rejected Mr. Madura's two-contract theory and found that all of Mr. Madura's claims arose out of the single loan transaction and were encompassed by the arbitration agreement.
After the arbitration ruling, the Maduras moved for leave to amend their federal complaint to add claims relating to the "second contract," i.e., the allegedly forged documents, with Countrywide and Full Spectrum. As to Mr. Madura, the district court denied the motion as moot because he had been ordered to arbitrate his claims. As to Mrs. Madura, the district court denied the motion as futile. The district court reiterated that all of the Maduras' claims arose out of the same loan transaction and that their attempt to distinguish between a first and second contract was unpersuasive.
Thereafter, the Maduras moved again for leave to amend their federal complaint. They re-alleged portions of their original complaint and included these additional claims: (1) spoliation of evidence; (2) rescission of the arbitration agreement based on fraud in the inducement; (3) TILA violations regarding a courier charge; (4) a state RICO claim; (5) a violation of the FCFA; and (6) a claim that the defendants ruined their credit. As to Mr. Madura, the district court denied the motion because he was required to arbitrate his claims and had delayed in asserting his fraud claim.3 As to Mrs. Madura, the district court denied the motion because, inter alia: (1) res judicata barred her claims based on the loan transaction; (2) her ruined credit and FCFA claims were futile; (3) applicable statutes of limitations barred her rescission and TILA claims; and (4) she unduly delayed in asserting her state RICO, uttering and punitive damages claims.
After Mr. Madura was compelled to arbitrate, Countrywide and Full Spectrum moved for summary judgment on all of Mrs. Madura's claims, arguing, inter alia, that she was relitigating the issues around the July 2000 loan transaction and that her claims were barred by issue and claim preclusion based on the state court action. The defendants alternatively argued that Mrs. Madura's claims were time-barred and moot and that she lacked standing.
The magistrate judge's R&R recommended granting the defendants' summary judgment motion. The R&R concluded that: (1) Mrs. Madura's claims were barred by issue and claim preclusion based on the state court's final judgment against her; and (2) alternatively, her TILA, fraud and usury claims were time-barred by applicable statutes of limitations and Florida's criminal-uttering statute did not provide a private right of action. The district court adopted the R&R over Mrs. Madura's objections and entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The Maduras filed this consolidated appeal.
Under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), if one par...
To continue reading
Request your trial