Richard v. Schneiderman & Sherman, PC, 297 Mich. App. 271

Nonjudicial foreclosure by advertisement at issue; remanded from Supreme Court after Saurman decision.
Homecomings Financial Network, Inc. was the underlying loan holder; MERS listed as mortgagee on the mortgage, but Homecomings named as lender.
Similar factual posture to Saurman: MERS authorized to foreclose by advertisement under the mortgage/Note structure.
Plaintiff claimed RESPA and FDCPA violations due to failure to produce the original promissory note and related documents.
Trial court granted summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) for lack of documentary evidence supporting RESPA/FDCPA claims.
Plaintiff moved to amend the complaint to add details; amendment deemed futile and not prejudicial; no plain error reversal on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether MERS was authorized to foreclose by advertisement.	Saurman-like challenge; MERS lacked authorization.	MERS authorized to foreclose; consistent relationship with Homecomings.	Affirmed that MERS authorized to foreclose by advertisement.
Whether the trial court erred by not ruling on the motion to amend and preserved arguments.	Clerk misinformed; hearing should have addressed amendment.	Arguments not preserved; amendment futile.	No reversal; no prejudice; plain error not shown.
Whether amendment to add RESPA/FDCPA-based claims would have survived and altered outcome.	Amendment would add viable RESPA/FDCPA theories.	Amendment futile; evidence already rebutted and largely duplicative.	Amendment futile; no prejudice; dismissal appropriate.

Residential Funding Co, LLC v Saurman, 490 Mich 909 (2011) (necessity of properly authorized foreclosure by MERS under similar facts)
Richard v Schneiderman & Sherman, PC, 490 Mich 1001 (2012) (remand precedential guidance related to RESPA/FDCPA claims and foreclosure context)
Duray Dev, LLC v Perrin, 288 Mich App 143 (2010) (plain error standard; prejudice required for reversal)