Marian Tipp v. JPMC Specialty Mortgage, LLC, et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-11962
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
MARIAN S. A. TIPP,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JPMC SPECIALTY MORTGAGE, LLC,
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
USCA11 Case: 22-11962 Document: 71-1 Date Filed: 12/04/2023 Page: 1 of 7

-- 1 of 7 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-11962
D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-00317-TFM-N
____________________
Before J ORDAN, BRASHER , and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Marian Tipp, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
(1) grant of summary judgment based on res judicata and (2) pre-
filing injunction for future lawsuits of the same nature. Ms. Tipp
argues that her due process rights were violated when the court
denied her rights to a family property lost in foreclosure to appel-
lees—various JP Morgan Chase (“JPMC”) entities—during the
Great Recession. We affirm.
I
A
In 2009, JPMC executed a foreclosure sale of the subject Al-
abama property—then owned by Ms. Tipp’s sister, Carolyn Sims—
at which it became the new owner. As the new owner, JPMC filed
an ejectment action against Ms. Sims in the Circuit Court of Mobile
County, Alabama. Ms. Sims then executed and recorded a quit-
claim deed purporting to convey the property to Ms. Tipp. With
aid of counsel, Ms. Tipp attempted to intervene in the ejectment
action, raising claims against JPMC for wrongful foreclosure, slan-
der of title, trespass, and trespass to chattels. The state court dis-
missed her claims. JPMC subsequently voluntarily dismissed the
ejectment action without prejudice upon learning that the prop-
erty had been vacated.
USCA11 Case: 22-11962 Document: 71-1 Date Filed: 12/04/2023 Page: 2 of 7

-- 2 of 7 --

22-11962 Opinion of the Court 3
Ms. Tipp has promised to “fight this until the day [she] die[s]
or Jesus comes.” D.E. 68 at 20. Keeping true to her word, Ms. Tipp
has litigated, with JPMC on the other side, her purported interest
in the subject property virtually nonstop since 2009. Along the
way, Alabama’s state courts—including the Alabama Supreme
Court—have ruled against her several times. See Marian Tipps v.
J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al., Case No. CV-2011-0139 (Ala.
Cir. Ct. Sep. 16, 2011) (granting defendants’ motion for summary
judgment), aff’d, 156 So. 3d 997 (Ala. 2013); Marian Tipps v. JPMC
Specialty Mortgage LLC, Case No. CV-2018-000165 (Ala. Cir. Ct.
Aug. 7, 2018) (granting defendant’s motion to dismiss with preju-
dice), aff’d, 312 So. 3d 2 (Ala. 2019), cert denied 140 S. Ct. 1124 (2020).
After Ms. Tipp initiated this federal action, the Alabama Su-
preme Court affirmed a permanent injunction prohibiting her from
filing future lawsuits regarding the subject property. See Tipp v.
JPMC Specialty Mortg., LLC, 367 So. 3d 357, 364 (Ala. 2021) (“Tipp
has pursued litigation against JPMC related to the foreclosure of
the Grand Bay property almost continuously since 2009. The trial
courts considering her claims have consistently entered judgments
against her and have repeatedly explained that her claims have no
merit. On multiple occasions, this Court has affirmed those judg-
ments. As we have done before, we now affirm the judgment en-
tered in favor of JPMC on the claims Tipp has asserted against it.
We also uphold the permanent injunction entered by the trial court
barring Tipp from reasserting the same or similar claims in the fu-
ture.”).
B
USCA11 Case: 22-11962 Document: 71-1 Date Filed: 12/04/2023 Page: 3 of 7

-- 3 of 7 --

4 Opinion of the Court 22-11962
This is another case in the long line of Ms. Tipp’s failed law-
suits related to the 2009 foreclosure of the subject property. This
time, Ms. Tipp filed a 60-page complaint against a number of JP
Morgan Chase entities titled “Declaratory Judgment Action to Re-
cover Possession of Property.” D.E. 1. In it, she alleges that JPMC
(1) denied her due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amend-
ments, (2) violated the National Bank Act, (3) violated the civil pro-
visions of the RICO Act, (4) committed common-law fraud and
conspiracy, (5) committed trespass, and (6) improperly executed
foreclosure proceedings as an unregistered foreign corporation.
JPMC moved for summary judgment on res judicata grounds
and filed for Rule 11 sanctions to obtain a pre-filing injunction
against Ms. Tipp. A magistrate judge, after holding a hearing, is-
sued a report recommending that both motions be granted. The
district court adopted the report and overruled Ms. Tipp’s objec-
tions. The district court enjoined Ms. Tipp from filing “any law
suits related to the 2009 foreclosure of the property at 11101 Ben
Hamilton Road, Grand Bay, Alabama, and the litigation it gener-
ated, without obtaining prior leave of this Court.” D.E. 76 at 2.1
1 The full text of the injunction reads:
Marian S.A. Tipp is hereby ENJOINED as follows:
Marian S.A. Tipp shall not file any law suits related to the 2009 for-
closure of the property at 11101 Ben Hamilton Road, Grand Bay, Ala-
bama, and the litigation it generated, without obtaining prior leave of
this Court. This limitation shall extend beyond these Defendants to
any of their affiliates and apply to suits filed in either state or federal
court. In order to acquire leave of Court, Tipp must file a petition
USCA11 Case: 22-11962 Document: 71-1 Date Filed: 12/04/2023 Page: 4 of 7

-- 4 of 7 --

22-11962 Opinion of the Court 5
This appeal followed.
II
Because res judicata determinations are pure questions of
law, we review them de novo. See Norfolk S. Corp. v. Chevron, U.S.A.,
Inc., 371 F.3d 1285, 1288 (11th Cir. 2004). “Pro se pleadings are held
to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and
will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v. United States,
148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). Nevertheless, when an appel-
lant fails to challenge properly on appeal one of the grounds on
which the district court based its judgment, she is deemed to have
abandoned any challenge of that ground, and it follows that the
judgment is due to be affirmed. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins.
Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014).
Rather than directly challenge the district court’s order on
appeal, Ms. Tipp has chosen to largely argue the merits of her
claims. Consequently, she has abandoned most of her challenge to
the district court’s application of res judicata. See Timson v. Sampson,
518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). As to the pre-filing injunction,
Ms. Tipp abandoned her challenge altogether. What follows then
is an abbreviated res judicata analysis.
demonstrating that (1) the suit to be filed is not barred by res judicata;
and (2) the court has subject-matter jurisdiction. These restrictions do
not apply to any further filings in this suit or an appeal from this case.
This injunction does not apply to an appeal from this case.
D.E. 76 at 2.
USCA11 Case: 22-11962 Document: 71-1 Date Filed: 12/04/2023 Page: 5 of 7

-- 5 of 7 --

6 Opinion of the Court 22-11962
When a federal court “is asked to give res judicata effect to a
state court judgment, it must apply the ‘res judicata principles of
the law of the state whose decision is set up as a bar to further liti-
gation.’” Amey, Inc. v. Gulf Abstract & Title, Inc., 758 F.2d 1486, 1509
(11th Cir. 1985) (quoting Hernandez v. City of Lafayette, 699 F.2d 734,
736 (5th Cir.1983)). Here, that state is Alabama. And in Alabama,
the “elements of res judicata are (1) a prior judgment on the merits,
(2) rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, (3) with substan-
tial identity of the parties, and (4) with the same cause of action
presented in both actions.” Equity Res. Mgmt., Inc. v. Vinson, 723 So.
2d 634, 636 (Ala. 1998). If all four elements are met, “then any
claim that was, or that could have been, adjudicated in the prior action
is barred from further litigation.” Id. (emphasis added).2
Construing Ms. Tipp’s brief broadly, she challenges only the
district court’s application of the first two elements of res judicata.
Ms. Tipp argues that because JPMC voluntarily dismissed the 2009
ejectment action (in which her claims were dismissed), that case
was not a judgment on the merits issued by a court of competent
jurisdiction. See, e.g., Appellant’s Br. at 49. Alternatively, Ms. Tipp
appears to argue that, because JPMC never acquired proper title in
the first place, the 2009 ejectment action was “a nullity.” Id.
The problem for Ms. Tipp is that even if we set aside the
2009 ejectment action, she still has two other adverse judgments on
the merits—both of which have been affirmed by the Alabama
2 The magistrate judge and the district court applied Alabama cases on res ju-
dicata.
USCA11 Case: 22-11962 Document: 71-1 Date Filed: 12/04/2023 Page: 6 of 7

-- 6 of 7 --

22-11962 Opinion of the Court 7
Supreme Court. Looking at her 2011 lawsuit alone, the Circuit
Court of Mobile County, Alabama, entered summary judgment in
favor of JPMC on all of Ms. Tipp’s claims. In that case, Ms. Tipp
alleged (1) wrongful foreclosure, (2) slander of title, (3) trespass, (4)
trespass to chattel, and (5) fraud on the court, and sought a declar-
atory judgment that she was the lawful owner of the subject prop-
erty. Ms. Tipp does not point to any evidence, nor is there any rea-
son to believe, that Alabama’s courts lacked jurisdiction to enter
judgments on the merits regarding the ownership of property in
Alabama.
III
We affirm (1) the district court’s order granting summary
judgment in favor of JPMC on res judicata grounds and (2) the im-
position of a pre-filing injunction against Ms. Tipp.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 22-11962 Document: 71-1 Date Filed: 12/04/2023 Page: 7 of 7

-- 7 of 7 --