Rooker Feldman Doctrine: Another Look At Standing and Necessary Parties

In Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Company, 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923) the Court held that the federal district court had no subject matter jurisdiction to entertain what was essentially an appeal seeking to review the substantive merits of a final state court judgment. The Court noted that the common law bill was merely an attempt to collaterally attack the judgment for alleged errors of law committed in the state court.

Rooker simply provides that where a final state court judgment has been rendered, after due hearing, by a state trial court, with jurisdiction of the subject matter and parties, and fairly presented to the highest state court in which a decision could be obtained, then only the resort for correction of errors involving federal questions is by certiorari to the United States Supreme Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1257.

One Response

  1. When standing and real parties are issues in a foreclosure action, Rooker-Feldman Doctrine is not applicable.

    In Rooker the court held “with jurisdiction of the subject matter and parties”. When the real party of interest is challenged, either by the judge or the defendant, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to do anything but to dismiss the case.

    The heart and soul of the Ohio Federal Court (and state court) dismissals ( Boyko, et al) is that the real party is not before the court (plaintiff financial institution) and the case must be dismissed. Only the real party of interest may lawfullly invoke the jurisdiction of the court.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: