Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Corporation
United States Supreme Court
580 U.S. 82, 137 S. Ct. 553 (2017)
- Written by Robert Cane, JD
Facts
In 1938, the Fair Housing Administration chartered the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) (defendant). In 1954, Congress rechartered Fannie Mae. In the new charter, Congress revised the sue-or-be-sued clause (the clause), which conferred jurisdiction on certain courts with respect to suits by or against Fannie Mae. The clause gave Fannie Mae the power “to sue and to be sued, and to complain and to defend, in any court of competent jurisdiction, State or Federal.” In 1999, Beverly Ann Hollis-Arrington (plaintiff) refinanced her mortgage owned by Cendant Mortgage Corporation (Cendant) (defendant). Cendant sold the mortgage to Fannie Mae. When Hollis-Arrington was unable to make her payments, Cendant repurchased the mortgage from Fannie Mae. Hollis-Arrington and her daughter, Crystal Lightfoot (plaintiff) attempted to stave off foreclosure, but they failed, and the house was sold. Hollis-Arrington and Lightfoot brought two unsuccessful suits in federal court. Subsequently, Hollis-Arrington and Lightfoot filed suit against Fannie Mae in state court, alleging that deficiencies in the refinancing and foreclosure processes entitled them to relief. Fannie Mae removed the case to federal court, relying on the clause as a basis for federal jurisdiction. Hollis-Arrington and Lightfoot moved to remand the case to state court, which the federal district court denied. Then, the district court dismissed the claims against Fannie Mae based on claim preclusion. The court of appeals affirmed. Hollis-Arrington and Lightfoot appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sotomayor, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.