Available at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/bankruptcy_research_library/375/
Abstract:
An unfavorable state court judgment can lead to the losing party seeking a second bite at the apple in federal court, but the Rooker-Feldman doctrine blocks second attempts with limited exceptions. The jurisdictional doctrine is derived from two United States Supreme Court cases: Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, where the collective holdings stand for the principle that a state court judgment is conclusive and that the lower federal courts lack jurisdiction to review such judgments. The Supreme Court is the only federal court authorized to review state court judgments.
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine serves as a jurisdictional barrier of entry into federal courts for bankruptcy litigation. The doctrine stays narrow enough not to preclude all state court appeals to the federal judiciary but assists in precluding parties seeking to relitigate the same arguments made in state court. This article addresses key case law in the context of bankruptcy surrounding the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Part I explains potential limitations that arise from the strong preclusive effect that Rooker-Feldman can have on state court appeals. Part II outlines the federal exemptions and provision of title 11 of the United States Code (the "Bankruptcy Code") that allow for certain matters from state court to be litigated, while also enabling Rooker-Feldman to be a beneficial tool in precluding other state court issues that should be kept out of federal court. Finally, Part III examines a Fifth Circuit decision that presents a prime example of the doctrine in action.
Commentary:
For consumer bankruptcy practitioners, Rooker-Feldman is often less a shield than a buzzsaw—capable of slicing through creative pleadings that seek to re-argue a foreclosure’s validity, unwind a state judgment lien on grounds other than those available under §§ 522(f) or 544, or nullify a divorce decree’s property division. As the doctrine’s exceptions show, the key is to frame the federal claim as arising under Title 11 itself, not as an attack on the “bona fides” of the state court ruling. Enforcing the automatic stay or discharge, pursuing preference or fraudulent transfer claims, or challenging post-petition conduct will generally survive Rooker-Feldman scrutiny. But arguments that “the state court got it wrong” about ownership, amount owed, or procedural fairness—no matter how righteous—belong in state appellate courts, not bankruptcy court.
In short, Rooker-Feldman is the polite but firm bouncer at the federal courthouse door: it keeps out patrons who have already lost across the street, but will wave in those who can show a valid federal bankruptcy ticket. The skill lies in knowing whether your client’s grievance is truly about a new injury or just another bite at the same apple.
To read a copy of the transcript, please see:
Blog comments