Rogue Federal Judge Reverses State Court Ruling & Allows Nevada Foreclosures To Go Forward; Ruling Issued W/out Prior Court Hearing

In Las Vegas, Nevada, the Las Vegas Sun reports:

• A Bank of America subsidiary can resume work on thousands of foreclosures in Nevada after a federal judge on Monday dissolved a restraining order against the foreclosures statewide issued by a Nye County District Court judge. The Nye County order was overturned Monday by Chief U.S. District Judge for Nevada Roger Hunt.

***

• "The ever-expanding body of case law within this district (of Nevada) holds that the Nevada law governing nonjudicial foreclosure does not require a lender to produce the original note nor does it require that ReconTrust be substituted as trustee under the deed of trust as prerequisites to non-judicial foreclosure proceedings," Hunt ruled.

• He also ruled that [Nye County Judge Robert] Lane's restraining order was invalid since Lane did not require North to post a bond -- a bond that would have satisfied damages to Bank of America from the issuance of the restraining order, should Bank of America prevail in the litigation. "The state court did not require plaintiff to post a bond, which under Nevada law renders the temporary restraining order void," Hunt wrote in his ruling.

• Hunt's ruling appeared to come without a hearing and without attorneys for North filing paperwork opposing Bank of America's motion that the restraining order be dissolved.(1)

• John Christian Barlow, North's attorney in St. George, Utah, said he was studying Hunt's ruling. Barlow confirmed the judge issued the ruling without a hearing. The ruling came before Barlow made an appearance in the case and before Barlow filed any briefs opposing Bank of America's motion that the Nye County restraining order be dissolved.

For the story, see Judge overturns order, allows 8,900 Nevada foreclosures to resume.

(1) Aside from the issue of the possible failure to conduct a hearing, 'leagle eagles' may want to ponder whether the Federal judge's ruling in this case violated the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which, for purposes of this blog, is satisfactorily described in Wikipedia as follows:

• The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a rule of civil procedure enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in two cases, Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). The doctrine holds that lower United States federal courts other than the Supreme Court should not sit in direct review of state court decisions unless Congress has specifically authorized such relief. In short, a federal court must not become a court of appeals for a state court decision.

'Leagle eagles' who don't find Wikipedia a satisfactory resource on this point and who have some time on their hands can check out Duke Law Journal: Allison B. Jones, The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine: What Does It Mean To Be Inextricably Intertwined?, 56 Duke L. J. 643 (2006).

See also Martin J. Bishop, Eleventh Circuit: Rooker-Feldman Doctrine Bars Post-Foreclosure TILA Recission Claim.