The Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff’s complaint alleged that his property was taken from him by Defendant by an illegal foreclosure and also amounted to a fraudulent transfer.  Plaintiff made other claims against Defendant relating to his loan and the foreclosure.  The Court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  This proceeding did not arise under Title 11 because Plaintiff’s claims related to property which was not property of the bankruptcy estate, as Defendant foreclosed on the property seven months prior to the bankruptcy filing.  Plaintiff’s claims were based on state law and non-bankruptcy federal law.  There was also no related to jurisdiction under the Pacor test because resolution of the issues surrounding non-estate property could have no conceivable effect on the bankruptcy estate.  Because the Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over any claims, there could also be no supplemental jurisdiction.  Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that the foreclosure sale was not a fraudulent transfer because the price received at the foreclosure was deemed to be the reasonably equivalent value.