USCA11 Case: 19-15182 Date Filed: 02/01/2021 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________
No. 19-15182 ________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-00258-TFM-MU
LEWIS ARCHER, SHEARIE ARCHER,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
AMERICA’S FIRST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama ________________________
(February 1, 2021)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, GRANT and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
GRANT, Circuit Judge:
After a state court granted America’s First possession of the Archers’ home,
Lewis and Shearie Archer sued in federal court asserting violations of the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act. But because their claims were fully litigated in USCA11 Case: 19-15182 Date Filed: 02/01/2021 Page: 2 of 7
the earlier state court action—or, at least, should have been—the doctrine of res
judicata prevents us from giving those issues a second look.
I.
We accept as true all of the Archers’ factual allegations in this appeal of a
ruling on a motion to dismiss. Luke v. Gulley, 975 F.3d 1140, 1143 (11th Cir.
2020). When Lewis and Shearie Archer stopped paying the mortgage on their
home, America’s First declared the mortgage in default. It attempted to foreclose
seven times over nineteen months—a “stressful” and “cruel” exercise that
culminated in a foreclosure sale on January 29, 2016. Though their house sold, the
Archers refused to leave. The stress had caused Shearie to go into a diabetic coma,
which she remained in for seven days.
Because the Archers did not vacate the premises, America’s First initiated an
ejectment action in the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama. The Archers
hired an attorney; they say they told him to bring claims under the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act in federal court. He never did. But the Archers did
raise various Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act allegations as defenses in the
state court action. In their initial pleading, they asserted that the foreclosure sale
was conducted “contrary to federal law including, but not limited to” the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act. And in response to America’s First’s motion for
summary judgment, they claimed that America’s First engaged in “Dual Tracking”
2 USCA11 Case: 19-15182 Date Filed: 02/01/2021 Page: 3 of 7
by proceeding with foreclosure during the mortgage modification process. They
also argued that America’s First failed to notify them of their appeal rights under
12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(f)(1) during the modification process.
The state court nonetheless granted summary judgment for America’s First
and awarded it possession of the property. The Archers, now proceeding pro se,
appealed the order to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals. That court affirmed the
trial court’s judgment.
Two weeks later, the Archers commenced this action in federal court. Their
claim was “filed pursuant to section 6(f) of” the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act. They alleged that America’s First engaged in “Dual-Tracking,” in violation
of 12 C.F.R. §§ 1024.41(f)(1)(i) and 1024.41(i). America’s First moved to
dismiss, arguing that the claims were barred by the Act’s three-year statute of
limitations and by res judicata. It also argued that any new claims brought under
the Act were barred because the Archers failed to raise them as compulsory
counterclaims in the earlier action. The district court agreed that the Archers had
missed the Act’s filing deadline, and dismissed their claims on that basis.
This appeal followed. The Archers contend that the “extraordinary
circumstances” of their case warrant equitable tolling of the Act’s statute of
limitations. America’s First disagrees, and also says that the Archers’ claims are
barred by the doctrine of res judicata either way.
3 USCA11 Case: 19-15182 Date Filed: 02/01/2021 Page: 4 of 7
II.
We review de novo the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss. Hill v.
White, 321 F.3d 1334, 1335 (11th Cir. 2003). We may affirm the district court’s
judgment for any reason supported by the record, even if not relied upon by the
district court. United States v. Al-Arian, 514 F.3d 1184, 1189 (11th Cir. 2008).
III.
When asked to give res judicata effect to a state court judgment, we must
apply the res judicata principles of “the state whose decision is set up as a bar to
further litigation.” Kizzire v. Baptist Health Sys., Inc., 441 F.3d 1306, 1308 (11th
Cir. 2006) (quoting Amey, Inc. v. Gulf Abstract & Title, Inc., 758 F.2d 1486, 1509
(11th Cir. 1985)). Because America’s First contends that the Alabama state court
judgment bars this federal action, the res judicata principles of Alabama apply.
Under Alabama law, the essential elements of res judicata are: “(1) a prior
judgment on the merits, (2) rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, (3) with
substantial identity of the parties, and (4) with the same cause of action presented
in both actions.” Id. at 1308–09 (quoting Equity Res. Mgmt., Inc. v. Vinson, 723
So. 2d 634, 636 (Ala. 1998)). If those four elements are met, then any claim that
was—or could have been—adjudicated in the earlier action is “barred from future
litigation.” Id. at 1309.
4 USCA11 Case: 19-15182 Date Filed: 02/01/2021 Page: 5 of 7
The first three elements are easily satisfied here. The trial court’s grant of
summary judgment, which was affirmed by the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals,
clearly constitutes a prior judgment on the merits. Ex parte Jefferson County, 656
So. 2d 382, 385 (Ala. 1995). There is no doubt that both the Circuit Court of
Mobile County and the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals are courts of competent
jurisdiction; federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over Real Estate
Settlement Procedure Act claims. See 12 U.S.C. § 2614. And, of course, the
parties in this action and in the ejectment action are the same—they have simply
switched places.
That leaves us with the question of whether it was the “same cause of
action” in both actions. Alabama uses the “substantial evidence” test to answer
this question. Kizzire, 441 F.3d at 1309. If the same evidence substantially
supports both actions, this element is met. Id. Res judicata applies not just to the
precise legal theories advanced in the earlier case, but to “all legal theories and
claims arising out of the same nucleus of operative facts.” Id. (quoting Old
Republic Ins. Co. v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
USCA11 Case: 19-15182 Date Filed: 02/01/2021 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________
No. 19-15182 ________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-00258-TFM-MU
LEWIS ARCHER, SHEARIE ARCHER,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
AMERICA’S FIRST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama ________________________
(February 1, 2021)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, GRANT and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
GRANT, Circuit Judge:
After a state court granted America’s First possession of the Archers’ home,
Lewis and Shearie Archer sued in federal court asserting violations of the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act. But because their claims were fully litigated in USCA11 Case: 19-15182 Date Filed: 02/01/2021 Page: 2 of 7
the earlier state court action—or, at least, should have been—the doctrine of res
judicata prevents us from giving those issues a second look.
I.
We accept as true all of the Archers’ factual allegations in this appeal of a
ruling on a motion to dismiss. Luke v. Gulley, 975 F.3d 1140, 1143 (11th Cir.
2020). When Lewis and Shearie Archer stopped paying the mortgage on their
home, America’s First declared the mortgage in default. It attempted to foreclose
seven times over nineteen months—a “stressful” and “cruel” exercise that
culminated in a foreclosure sale on January 29, 2016. Though their house sold, the
Archers refused to leave. The stress had caused Shearie to go into a diabetic coma,
which she remained in for seven days.
Because the Archers did not vacate the premises, America’s First initiated an
ejectment action in the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama. The Archers
hired an attorney; they say they told him to bring claims under the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act in federal court. He never did. But the Archers did
raise various Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act allegations as defenses in the
state court action. In their initial pleading, they asserted that the foreclosure sale
was conducted “contrary to federal law including, but not limited to” the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act. And in response to America’s First’s motion for
summary judgment, they claimed that America’s First engaged in “Dual Tracking”
2 USCA11 Case: 19-15182 Date Filed: 02/01/2021 Page: 3 of 7
by proceeding with foreclosure during the mortgage modification process. They
also argued that America’s First failed to notify them of their appeal rights under
12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(f)(1) during the modification process.
The state court nonetheless granted summary judgment for America’s First
and awarded it possession of the property. The Archers, now proceeding pro se,
appealed the order to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals. That court affirmed the
trial court’s judgment.
Two weeks later, the Archers commenced this action in federal court. Their
claim was “filed pursuant to section 6(f) of” the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act. They alleged that America’s First engaged in “Dual-Tracking,” in violation
of 12 C.F.R. §§ 1024.41(f)(1)(i) and 1024.41(i). America’s First moved to
dismiss, arguing that the claims were barred by the Act’s three-year statute of
limitations and by res judicata. It also argued that any new claims brought under
the Act were barred because the Archers failed to raise them as compulsory
counterclaims in the earlier action. The district court agreed that the Archers had
missed the Act’s filing deadline, and dismissed their claims on that basis.
This appeal followed. The Archers contend that the “extraordinary
circumstances” of their case warrant equitable tolling of the Act’s statute of
limitations. America’s First disagrees, and also says that the Archers’ claims are
barred by the doctrine of res judicata either way.
3 USCA11 Case: 19-15182 Date Filed: 02/01/2021 Page: 4 of 7
II.
We review de novo the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss. Hill v.
White, 321 F.3d 1334, 1335 (11th Cir. 2003). We may affirm the district court’s
judgment for any reason supported by the record, even if not relied upon by the
district court. United States v. Al-Arian, 514 F.3d 1184, 1189 (11th Cir. 2008).
III.
When asked to give res judicata effect to a state court judgment, we must
apply the res judicata principles of “the state whose decision is set up as a bar to
further litigation.” Kizzire v. Baptist Health Sys., Inc., 441 F.3d 1306, 1308 (11th
Cir. 2006) (quoting Amey, Inc. v. Gulf Abstract & Title, Inc., 758 F.2d 1486, 1509
(11th Cir. 1985)). Because America’s First contends that the Alabama state court
judgment bars this federal action, the res judicata principles of Alabama apply.
Under Alabama law, the essential elements of res judicata are: “(1) a prior
judgment on the merits, (2) rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, (3) with
substantial identity of the parties, and (4) with the same cause of action presented
in both actions.” Id. at 1308–09 (quoting Equity Res. Mgmt., Inc. v. Vinson, 723
So. 2d 634, 636 (Ala. 1998)). If those four elements are met, then any claim that
was—or could have been—adjudicated in the earlier action is “barred from future
litigation.” Id. at 1309.
4 USCA11 Case: 19-15182 Date Filed: 02/01/2021 Page: 5 of 7
The first three elements are easily satisfied here. The trial court’s grant of
summary judgment, which was affirmed by the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals,
clearly constitutes a prior judgment on the merits. Ex parte Jefferson County, 656
So. 2d 382, 385 (Ala. 1995). There is no doubt that both the Circuit Court of
Mobile County and the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals are courts of competent
jurisdiction; federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over Real Estate
Settlement Procedure Act claims. See 12 U.S.C. § 2614. And, of course, the
parties in this action and in the ejectment action are the same—they have simply
switched places.
That leaves us with the question of whether it was the “same cause of
action” in both actions. Alabama uses the “substantial evidence” test to answer
this question. Kizzire, 441 F.3d at 1309. If the same evidence substantially
supports both actions, this element is met. Id. Res judicata applies not just to the
precise legal theories advanced in the earlier case, but to “all legal theories and
claims arising out of the same nucleus of operative facts.” Id. (quoting Old
Republic Ins. Co. v. Lanier, 790 So. 2d 922, 928 (Ala. 2000)).
Both the state and federal court actions concerned the same nucleus of
operative facts. In state court, America’s First sought possession of the Archers’
home based on the foreclosure sale; the Archers defended by saying that the
foreclosure sale was void under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The
5 USCA11 Case: 19-15182 Date Filed: 02/01/2021 Page: 6 of 7
Archers also argued that America’s First failed to provide the proper notifications
and that America’s First engaged in “Dual Tracking.” Then, in federal court, the
Archers’ newly filed claims again centered on the foreclosure of their home. The
couple alleged that America’s First failed to provide the proper notifications and
violated “Dual-Tracking protection laws” when it foreclosed on their home.
Indeed, most of the facts and allegations from their present complaint came from
their various state court filings. Each of their arguments in federal court arise from
the exact same transaction and occurrence as that of the earlier litigation.
There is no question that the Archers’ federal complaint attempts to raise
claims arising out of the same operative facts as the state court action. Kizzire, 441
F.3d at 1309. And because the same evidence “substantially supports” both suits,
all four elements of res judicata are met. Id. at 1310. Though the Archers may not
have raised the exact same claims in each suit, the legal theories in both arise out
of the same nucleus of operative facts. In these circumstances, permitting the
Archers to proceed would be giving them a second bite at the apple, which we
cannot do.1
The Archers devote two sentences of their initial brief to arguing that the
district court violated the “Supremacy Clause” when it refused to stay the Alabama
1 Because we hold that the Archers’ claims were barred by res judicata, we need not consider whether they were also barred by the Real Estate Settlement Procedure Act’s statute of limitations. 6 USCA11 Case: 19-15182 Date Filed: 02/01/2021 Page: 7 of 7
court’s writ of possession while their case was ongoing. But the Archers provide
no additional support for the idea that a district court might have the power to
collaterally review a state court judgment regarding the validity of a foreclosure
proceeding. This argument was not fully briefed, so it is abandoned. Access Now,
Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004).
* * *
Because the Archers’ complaint raises claims that arise out of the same
nucleus of operative fact as the earlier state court action, the doctrine of res
judicata bars their claims. For that reason, we AFFIRM the judgment of the
district court.