Cedric Williams v. Pledged Property II, LLC
508 F. App'x 465
6th Cir.2012Background
- Williams mortgaged a Wayne County home; Litton serviced the loan beginning 2007 and foreclosure occurred after default and bankruptcy stay lifted in 2009.
- Foreclosure sale occurred October 26, 2009; MERS purchased the property and conveyed to Pledged Property; Litton stopped servicing in March 2010.
- Williams filed June 9, 2010, asserting multiple claims including quiet title, unjust enrichment, and breach-related theories.
- District court granted summary judgment on standing and Statute of Frauds; Williams appealed.
- District court denied Williams’ motion to amend; the district court’s decision was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing under Michigan law | Williams seeks relief despite expired redemption rights. | Williams lacked a legal or equitable interest after redemption period. | Williams lacked standing; claims dismissed for lack of title rights post-redemption. |
| Michigan Statute of Frauds applicability | Oral promise to delay foreclosure should be enforceable. | § 566.132(2) requires writing for such promises. | Statute of Frauds bar applies; oral promises unenforceable. |
| Unjust enrichment viability | Equitable relief possible absent contract. | Foreclosure subject to contract; no implied contract allowed. | Unjust enrichment claim properly dismissed. |
| Violation of Mich. Ct. & 600.3205 | Foreclosure process violated statutory requirements. | Notice timing fell before operative date; statute not applicable. | Statute inapplicable; claim properly dismissed. |
| Amendment to add deceptive trade practice claim | Would add a factual basis for fraud. | Untimely and prejudicial; futile. | District court did not abuse discretion; amendment denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Senters v. Ottawa Sav. Bank, FSB, 503 N.W.2d 639 (Mich. 1993) (foreclosure rights extinguished post-redemption; equity cannot override statute)
- Piotrowski v. State Land Office Bd., 4 N.W.2d 514 (Mich. 1942) (foreclosure procedures govern standing)
- Heimerdinger v. Heimerdinger, 299 N.W.2d 844 (Mich. 1941) (fraud/irregularity must be in foreclosure process to extend redemption)
- Schering-Plough Healthcare Products, Inc. v. NBD Bank, N.A., 98 F.3d 904 (6th Cir. 1996) (meaning of financial accommodation; writings required for waivers)
- Crown Tech. Park v. D&N Bank, FSB, 619 N.W.2d 66 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000) (oral promises to delay foreclosure fall under Statute of Frauds)
- Belle Isle Grill Corp. v. Detroit, 666 N.W.2d 271 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003) (unjust enrichment requires lack of express contract)
- MOSES, Inc. v. Se. Mich. Council of Gov’ts, 716 N.W.2d 278 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006) (standing requires legal or equitable right in subject matter)
- Overton v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., — (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) (standing after redemption period generally extinguished)