Amelita Mandingo v. PNC Bank
17-1323
| 6th Cir. | Dec 20, 2017Background
- Mandingo held a mortgage with PNC and filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2009; the confirmed plan required ongoing payments to PNC.
- She fell behind on payments in late 2011–2012; PNC moved in bankruptcy court (Mar 13, 2012) stating she was three months in default; the parties later stipulated she owed $18,263.75 and agreed to additional cure payments beginning Sept 2012, which she did not sustain.
- PNC pursued foreclosure after loan-modification attempts failed; the bankruptcy court lifted the automatic stay and PNC purchased the property at a sheriff’s sale; Mandingo did not redeem within the statutory period.
- Mandingo sued in state court asserting common-law and statutory slander of title, quiet title, innocent and negligent misrepresentation, and fraud (including silent fraud and bad-faith promises), alleging false statements about default, misapplied payments, and statutory noncompliance in foreclosure notices.
- The district court granted summary judgment to PNC on all claims: bankruptcy-court statements were absolutely privileged; Mandingo produced no evidence that published statements were false; she failed to show superior title; misrepresentation claims failed because the allegedly false statements were court filings (not transactional); silent-fraud failed for lack of intent and duty to disclose.
- On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed, concluding each claim had legal defects Mandingo did not cure on appeal (noting one technical inaccuracy in PNC’s March 13 filing as to whether she was two vs. three months delinquent).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Slander of title (statements to bankruptcy court) | PNC falsely told the court Mandingo was in default, damaging her title | Statements in judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged; also Mandingo stipulated to arrearage | Dismissed — judicial statements absolutely privileged; no actionable slander |
| Slander of title (published chain-of-title notices) | Notices and sheriff’s deed falsely represented PNC’s authority/compliance with Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 600.3204/3205 | Mandingo produced no evidence the published statements were false; sheriff’s deed didn’t reference the statutes | Dismissed — plaintiff failed to show published false statement |
| Quiet title | Foreclosure was improper (escrow analysis, misapplied payments) so Mandingo’s title is superior | PNC acquired title at sheriff’s sale; Mandingo admitted she does not own the property; no facts showing superior title | Dismissed — Mandingo failed to establish superior title |
| Innocent & negligent misrepresentation | PNC’s bankruptcy filing misrepresented arrearage caused by misapplied payments, causing harm | Alleged misrepresentation was in a court filing, not a transaction or contract formation — elements for these torts not met | Dismissed — statements in court filings do not support these torts |
| Fraud / Silent fraud | PNC failed to disclose misapplication of payments, lack of escrow analyses, and incorrect arrearage to induce reliance | Even if nondisclosures were material, Mandingo produced no evidence PNC intended to deceive or had a legal duty to disclose | Dismissed — no evidence of intent or duty to disclose for silent-fraud claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 597 N.W.2d 817 (Mich. 1999) (statements during judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged if relevant)
- Schlinkert v. Henderson, 49 N.W.2d 180 (Mich. 1951) (absolute privilege bars civil slander damages for judicial statements)
- B & B Inv. Grp. v. Gitler, 581 N.W.2d 17 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998) (elements of slander of title require published false statement)
- Khadher v. PNC Bank, N.A., [citation="577 F. App'x 470"] (6th Cir. 2014) (quiet-title requires facts showing plaintiff's superior claim)
- Yaldu v. Bank of Am. Corp., 700 F. Supp. 2d 832 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (negligent-misrepresentation requires false representation in connection with contract formation)
- Tocco v. Richman Greer Prof'l Ass'n, [citation="553 F. App'x 473"] (6th Cir. 2013) (silent-fraud requires pre-existing legal or equitable duty to disclose)
- Hord v. Envtl. Research Inst. of Michigan, 579 N.W.2d 133 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998) (elements of silent fraud include material nondisclosure, knowledge that omission creates false impression, and intent to induce reliance)