Charlie Smith, Jr. v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP, 517 F. App'x 395

In 2010, Deutsche Bank foreclosed on Charlie Smith, Jr.'s Romulus, Michigan residence.
Smith disputes the foreclosure under various theories; the district court held no theory warranted relief and rejected unjust enrichment.
Smith allegedly has an interest in property secured by a mortgage originally between Charlie Smith, Sr. and a lender for $200,000; the record unclear whether Smith, Sr. and Smith, Jr. are the same person, but the court assumes they are for purposes of maximizing Smith's potential interest.
Smith attempted a strategy akin to a 'short payoff' with Bloomfield Financial Services, but a second lien prevented agreement.
Mediation rights under Michigan law were offered to Smith; he did not pursue mediation or certain loan-modification procedures.
After the six-month redemption period expired, the sheriff’s sale occurred on May 12, 2010; Smith did not redeem by November 12, 2010.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Smith has standing to challenge the sale.	Smith argues state-law standing tolling applies.	Defendants argue redemption period expiration bars challenge.	No tolling; Smith's interest extinguished by sale.
Whether irregularities under §§ 600.3205a–3205c toll the redemption period.	Smith cites 3205a–3205c rights to extension, modification eligibility, and calculations.	Smith failed to meet notice/eligibility prerequisites; no tolling.	Neither irregularity tolled the redemption period; rights not availed.
Whether assignment to the Trust was void or voidable under the Pooling and Service Agreement.	Smith asserts the closing date violated the pooling agreement, challenging validity of the assignment.	Smith lacks standing to challenge the agreement; record chain of title valid.	Assignment not void; only voidable if there were defects; no genuine risk of double payment shown.
Whether Smith's unjust enrichment claim lies.	Smith contends the bank benefited from title and is inequitable retained.	Bank's actions under foreclosure are lawful and not inequitable under Michigan law.	No inequity; unjust enrichment rejected.

Livonia Properties Holdings, LLC v. 12840–12976 Farmington Road Holdings, LLC, 399 F. App’x 97 (6th Cir. 2010) (record chain of title valid; allows defenses to avoid double payment without invalidating all agreements)
Morris Pumps v. Centerline Piping, Inc., 729 N.W.2d 904 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006) (elements of unjust enrichment; inequity required)