Corey Spector v. Accredited Home Loans, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: March 2, 2021
• Docket: 20-1893
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 20-1893 ___________________________

Corey Spector

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Accredited Home Loans, Inc.; Select Portfolio Services; Millsap & Singer, P.C., as Trustee; U.S. Bank, N.A., as Trustee, as successor-in-interest to Bank of America, N.A., as Trustee as successor by merger to LaSalle Bank, N.A., as Indenture Trustee for the holders of the Accredited Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-3 Asset Backed Notes

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________

Submitted: February 26, 2021 Filed: March 2, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM. Corey Spector appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his action. He argues on appeal that the district court erred in dismissing his wrongful foreclosure claim, and erred by not granting him leave to amend his complaint. Upon careful de novo review, see Ballinger v. Culotta, 322 F.3d 546, 548 (8th Cir. 2003) (standard of review), we affirm. We find that Spector’s wrongful foreclosure claim was barred by res judicata, as he previously litigated the same claim in state court, and the same parties or their privies were involved in the state court proceedings. See Brown v. Kan. City Live, LLC, 931 F.3d 712, 714 (8th Cir. 2019) (elements of res judicata under Missouri law); Kesterson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 242 S.W.3d 712, 716 (Mo. 2008) (en banc) (where evidentiary details needed to prove claims were different, but crux of inquiry was same, res judicata applied); Meadowfresh Sols. USA, LLC v. Maple Grove Farms, LLC, 606 S.W.3d 193, 205 (Mo. Ct. App. 2020) (assignee was in privity with assignor); Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 539 S.W.3d 879, 901 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017) (attorney appointed by bank for foreclosure was in privity with bank). We also find that the district court did not err in failing to grant Spector leave to amend his complaint. See Clayton v. White Hall Sch. Dist., 778 F.2d 457, 460 (8th Cir. 1985) (no abuse of discretion in failing to grant leave to amend where appellant merely concluded response to motion to dismiss with request for leave to amend, and did not offer proposed complaint or even substance of proposed amendment to court).

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________

1 The Honorable Stephen R. Clark, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

-2-