United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
IN RE: STEPHEN DEITCH, Debtor.
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Appellee STEPHEN DEITCH, Appellant,
BANKRUPTCY NO. 13-10121.
For STEPHEN DEITCH, Appellant: DAVID A. SCHOLL, LEAD ATTORNEY, PHILADEPHIA, PA.
For FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION (FANNIE MAE), CREDITOR C/O SETERUS, INC., Respondent: JENNIFER R. GORCHOW, LEAD ATTORNEY, PHELAN HALLINAN & SCHMIEG LLP, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
For STEPHEN DEITCH, Debtor-in-Possess: DAVID A. SCHOLL, LEAD ATTORNEY, PHILADEPHIA, PA.
For JENNIFER ROSE GORCHOW, ESQ., Interested Party, Pro se, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
For ALANE A. BECKET, ESQ., Interested Party, Pro se, MALVERN, PA.
For FREDERICK L. REIGLE, Trustee, Pro se, READING, PA.
For FREDERICK L. REIGLE, Trustee: POLLY A. LANGDON, LEAD ATTORNEY, READING, PA.
For UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, Trustee, Pro se, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
WENDY BEETLESTONE, J.
Appellant Stephen Deitch (the " Debtor" ) brings this appeal of an order by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denying his Objection to a Proof of Claim filed by Appellee Federal National Mortgage Association (" Fannie Mae" ). In re Deitch, 522 B.R. 99, 103 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2014) [Bankr. No. 13-10121, Docket No. 177]. Fannie Mae's Proof of Claim cites a default judgment on the Debtor's mortgage loan, as granted by the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County. The Debtor filed an Objection, claiming that he has a right to rescind the mortgage based on the original lender's violations of the Door to Door Sales provision of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (" UTPCPL" ). After consideration of several rounds of briefing and oral argument, the Bankruptcy Court denied the Objection. The Debtor raises several issues on appeal in arguing that the Bankruptcy Court's decision to deny the Objection is incorrect. Fannie Mae raises several issues of its own in response, chief among them for the purposes of this Opinion that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes the federal courts from determining the validity of the Debtor's claim of right to rescission.
For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that pursuant to the Rooker - Feldman doctrine the federal courts have no subject matter jurisdiction over the Debtor's Objection, and thus the December ...