Ljeka Gojcevic v. US Bank National Association Na, 328943

Plaintiffs owned Macomb Township property secured by a 2001 mortgage; MERS assigned the mortgage to U.S. Bank in 2009.
Plaintiffs defaulted in 2010, entered a trial loan-modification plan, and made three trial payments of $882.59 through Nov. 1, 2010; they largely stopped paying thereafter.
Plaintiffs executed a Home Affordable Modification Agreement on June 21, 2011; the Agreement stated the modification would become effective on November 1, 2010, provided preconditions were met.
Foreclosure proceedings resumed after plaintiffs failed to cure defaults, mediation was missed, and bankruptcy failed; plaintiffs filed suit in Oct. 2013 seeking injunction and asserting claims including breach of the modification, wrongful foreclosure, quiet title, promissory estoppel, and emotional distress.
The trial court granted defendant’s MCR 2.116(C)(10) motion, dismissing all claims and awarding sanctions for a frivolous claim; plaintiffs appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Breach of modification agreement	Agreement should have taken effect Nov. 1, 2010; U.S. Bank breached by foreclosing/ treating them as in default	Agreement required satisfaction of preconditions; plaintiffs remained in default and received modification benefits only if preconditions met	Court: No breach; Agreement unambiguous, preconditions not met, no genuine issue of material fact
Promissory estoppel	Bank promised not to declare default or to deliver documents timely, inducing plaintiffs not to pay	No pleaded promissory estoppel claim; no evidence of a promise to forbear or induce nonpayment	Court: Estoppel not pleaded and elements not established; summary disposition proper
Quiet title	Plaintiffs sought to eliminate bank’s mortgage interest	Bank holds mortgage interest; quiet title not appropriate to challenge foreclosure by a defaulting mortgagor	Court: Quiet title claim inapplicable and dismissed
Wrongful foreclosure / emotional distress / interference with quiet enjoyment	Bank acted maliciously/ recklessly by late delivery of documents and ignoring contacts	Loss-mitigation notes show contacts; plaintiffs were advised to keep making trial payments; no evidence of willful misconduct	Court: Dismissed for lack of factual support; sanctions upheld for the quiet-enjoyment claim as legally meritless

West v. General Motors Corp., 469 Mich 177 (standard for genuine issue of material fact on summary disposition)
Coates v. Bastian Bros., Inc., 276 Mich App 498 (contract interpretation: plain and ordinary meaning governs)
Novak v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 235 Mich App 675 (promissory estoppel elements and treatment as distinct cause of action)
Kitchen v. Kitchen, 465 Mich 654 (standard of review and definition for frivolous claims sanctions)
Beach v. Twp. of Lima, 489 Mich 99 (purpose and scope of quiet title actions)