Haifa Goryoka v. Quicken Loan Incorporated
519 F. App'x 926
6th Cir.2013Background
- Goryoka sued Quicken Loans, Bank of America, and MERS in Michigan state court in March 2011 over a condominium foreclosure by advertisement.
- Her complaint asserted seven claims, including fraud, licensing-act violations, breach, quiet title, foreclosure-by-advertisement violations, and TILA/RESPA, plus injunctive relief; defendants removed to federal court.
- The district court granted the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 12(c) motions, dismissing several claims, and Goryoka appeals only counts IV, V, VI, and VII.
- Under Michigan law, the redemption period expired on March 28, 2011, the date she filed suit, with no tolling for a mere modification discussion according to controlling authorities.
- The district court found the modification discussions insufficient to defeat foreclosure, concluded notices were properly recorded and served, and dismissed the challenged claims as procedurally or substantively defective.
- The court also held the TILA claim time-barred and noted counts IV and VII are remedies, not separate causes of action; leave-to-amend argument was not preserved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether count V (foreclosure-by-advertisement) was properly dismissed. | Goryoka contends irregularities and attempted modification created a tolling or defect. | Defendants argue notices were proper; modification discussions do not toll foreclosure; fraud/irregularity not pleaded. | Count V properly dismissed |
| Whether count VI (TILA) was time-barred or inadequately pleaded. | Goryoka asserts TILA/RESPA violations with reliance on post-2009 reforms. | District court held TILA claim time-barred and inadequately argued. | Count VI barred/waived |
| Whether counts IV (quiet title) and VII (injunctive relief) were properly dismissed as remedies rather than separate causes of action. | Goryoka seeks independent quiet-title relief and injunctions. | Remedies are not standalone claims; properly dismissed as relief, not causes of action. | Counts IV and VII properly dismissed |
| Whether the district court should have allowed leave to amend title/claims. | Goryoka argues for amendment to cure pleading deficiencies. | No motion for leave to amend was made; thus procedurally barred from consideration. | No amendment issue addressed on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Kim v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 825 N.W.2d 329 (Mich. 2012) (foreclosure defects are voidable, not void ab initio)
- Davenport v. HSBC Bank USA, 739 N.W.2d 383 (Mich. 2007) (some defects can render foreclosure voidable; later abrogated by Kim)
- Mitan v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 703 F.3d 949 (6th Cir. 2012) (some defects do not void foreclosure; discusses modification allegations)
- Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain plausible factual content)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading legal claims)