Bryant v. Chupack
Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking to overturn prior state-court decision that found in favor of banks seeking to foreclose on two parcels of land in Chicago. Record showed that at time instant action had been filed in federal court, state court had found that banks were entitled to foreclose on both parcels, but that neither parcel had been sold and state court had yet to apportion proceeds from any sale. Doctrine of claims preclusion, though, barred instant action, where, by time instant dismissal had been entered state court action with respect to one parcel was over, and state court action had been complete with respect to second parcel by time of oral argument in instant case. Also, Ct. of Appeals noted that plaintiff could have asserted arguments in instant action in prior state-court action, and that they could not file instant sequential action that concerned same claim as state-court action (i.e., who owned note and mortgage) even if instant action contained different arguments.