Bondi v. Bank of America Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a suit to quiet title is either in rem or quasi in rem
• stating that a suit that is either in rem or quasi in rem “does not lose that nature simply because [the claimant] seeks monetary damages in addition to title to property”
• declining to determine whether quiet title actions are in rem or quasi in rem because the distinction does not impact the prior exclusive jurisdiction rule in a case “strikingly similar” to Chapman
• declining to exercise jurisdiction over action to set aside foreclosure sale because it was in rem or quasi in rem proceeding and state court had jurisdiction over the same property
• “Thus, generally speaking, in an unlawful detainer action, the court is largely confined to a determination within Blackstone’s first and second ‘degrees’ of title.”
• unlawful detainer action limits court to determining possession between plaintiff and defendant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).