JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association v. Higgins, 1:23-cv-01112

JPMorgan Chase Bank (Chase) sued John and Martha Higgins (the Higginses) and the United States to foreclose a mortgage on property located at 50102 Alpine Boulevard, Grand Beach, MI.
The Higginses' house occupies two lots (18 and 203), but the recorded mortgage covered only Lot 18, not Lot 203.
In 2016, the Higginses stopped making payments on their mortgage and property taxes; Chase later recorded a lis pendens on both lots, and the United States recorded a federal tax lien on both lots in 2021.
The Higginses and Chase attempted a loan modification in 2022, but the Higginses defaulted again.
Chase moved for judgment on the pleadings, seeking foreclosure on Lot 18; the United States did not oppose foreclosure of Lot 18 but maintains its tax lien is superior on Lot 203.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Chase can foreclose Lot 18	Higginses defaulted, mortgage allows foreclosure on Lot 18	Dispute default, argue practical/marketability issues may invalidate foreclosure	Yes; Higginses defaulted under mortgage terms
Whether loan default occurred	Failure to pay equals default under mortgage agreements	Nonpayment not necessarily default; practical consequences	Yes; nonpayment is default per contract language
Validity of mortgage over only Lot 18	Mortgage clearly covers Lot 18	Mortgage should cover both lots because home straddles both	Yes; mortgage is valid as written—even if only partial house
Marketability/practicality of foreclosure	Not relevant to legal enforceability	Partial house on Lot 18 makes foreclosure unreasonable	Not relevant; marketability does not affect enforceability

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winget, 510 F.3d 577 (6th Cir. 2007) (standard for judgment on the pleadings; factual disputes preclude judgment)
Barany-Snyder v. Weiner, 539 F.3d 327 (6th Cir. 2008) (court may consider exhibits attached to complaint on Rule 12(c) motions)