Block v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 520 F. App'x 339

Mortgage loan for $111,000 in Oct 2005 secured by Blocks' home in Highland, MI.
Default occurred June 2009; loan assigned to BAC/Home Loans in Oct 2009 and foreclosed with sheriff’s sale on Mar 15, 2010.
Blocks sued in state court nearly a year later alleging a Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3205 violation for missing loan-modification calculations.
The case was removed to federal court and the district court dismissed the claims.
Six-month Michigan redemption period expired Sept 16, 2010; after that, revival requires fraud or mistake; Blocks’ allegations were speculative and insufficient.
Even if tolling applied, Blocks failed to allege notice or request for modification; required steps under § 600.3205a–c not triggered; remedy is conversion to judicial foreclosure, not restoration of title.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Blocks can challenge the foreclosure after redemption period	Blocks sought to challenge foreclosure under § 600.3205 based on alleged fraud	Redemption rights extinguished after six months; no fraud/mistake pleadings shown	Affirmed: statutes bar challenge after redemption; no valid fraud showings.
Whether § 600.3205 claim survives without modification notice or request	Blocks did not receive modification opportunity or notice	Notice provided; no counselor contact, so no modification duty arose	Affirmed: lack of notice/request defeats claim.
Remedy for a breach of the loan-modification statute	Blocks seek all legal title to the home	Remedy is conversion to judicial foreclosure, not title restoration	Remedy limited to conversion, not restoration of title.

Mitan v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 703 F.3d 949 (6th Cir. 2012) (modification requests affect § 600.3205 viability)
Senters v. Ottawa Savings Bank, FSB, 503 N.W.2d 639 (Mich. 1993) (post-foreclosure redemption period and fraud exception)