eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
 2021-03

Corey Spector v. Accredited Home Loans, Inc. ( 2021 )


Menu:
 
  •                  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[Unpublished]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-