United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 21-1084 and 21-1101 CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JEROME M. DAVIS and LYNNE TERNIOR-DAVIS, Defendants-Appellants. ____________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division. No. 3:19-cv-50299 — Iain D. Johnston, Judge. ____________________ No. 21-1446 JEROME M. DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Defendant-Appellee. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division. No. 3:19-cv-50277 — Iain D. Johnston, Judge. ____________________ 2 No. 21-1084, et al. SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER 22, 2021 — DECIDED DECEMBER 10, 2021 ____________________

Before SYKES, Chief Judge, and FLAUM and BRENNAN, Cir- cuit Judges. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge. For several years, CitiMortgage, Inc., has been locked in a legal battle with Jerome M. Davis and Lynne Ternoir-Davis over a mortgage the couple took out on their residence in 2005. After the Davises defaulted on the loan and filed for bankruptcy, Jerome Davis received a bank- ruptcy discharge, which the bankruptcy court later held did not extend to the debt Davis owed CitiMortgage. Rather than appeal that decision, Davis has attempted to collaterally attack that court’s ruling—first, by attempting to remove CitiMortgage’s foreclosure action to federal court, and second, by filing a separate suit against CitiMortgage. Da- vis lost in each of those proceedings, and CitiMortgage was awarded attorney fees and costs when the court remanded the foreclosure proceeding. Davis appeals these two decisions. But we lack jurisdiction to review the remand order, and Davis has waived his argu- ments challenging the attorney fees and costs award. We also agree with the district court’s dismissal of Davis’s suit against CitiMortgage. I This dispute encompasses three lawsuits: (1) an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court in which Jerome Davis chal- lenged CitiMortgage’s debt and security interest; (2) CitiMort- gage’s foreclosure action against the Davises; and (3) Davis’s suit against CitiMortgage alleging, among other things, unfair No. 21-1084, et al. 3 debt collection practices. Only the latter two actions are before us. 1. Davis’s bankruptcy and adversary proceeding. In 2005, the Davises executed a mortgage on their residence with ABN Amro Mortgage Group, Inc. After defaulting on the mort- gage, Davis 1 entered bankruptcy in 2011. CitiMortgage, the successor in interest to ABN Amro Mortgage Group due to a merger, filed a proof of claim in the amount of $478,238.90, secured by the Davis’s residence. Davis’s Chapter 13 bank- ruptcy plan was approved in 2012 and incorporated an agree- ment between the parties that conditioned the automatic stay on Davis making monthly mortgage payments to CitiMort- gage, along with scheduled payments to cure a post-petition arrearage of $23,402.24 and a pre-petition arrearage of $78,640.90. According to the agreement, if Davis defaulted on the payments to CitiMortgage, the automatic stay would lift, and CitiMortgage could foreclose on the residence. In 2014, after Davis defaulted on the payments, CitiMort- gage withdrew its proof of claim and notified the bankruptcy court that the stay had terminated. Davis then challenged CitiMortgage’s debt and security inte