Tillman Industrial Properties LLC v. Mercantile Bank Mortgage Co
361369
Mich. Ct. App.May 9, 2024Background
- Plaintiffs (Tillman Industrial Properties, LLC and Roosevelt Tillman) alleged Mercantile Bank discriminated against them based on race in connection with loan foreclosure proceedings on commercial and residential properties.
- Tillman had extensive financing with Mercantile Bank, but failed to meet loan obligations including a balloon payment and became consistently late on payments, leading to foreclosure actions.
- Plaintiffs filed suit, raising claims under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), common law fraud, and the Truth in Lending Act, but only the FHA/ECOA claims for disparate treatment survived to trial.
- The trial court found the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment, and further found the Bank had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions that were not pretextual.
- Plaintiffs also challenged the trial court's consideration of a bank employee’s affidavit as substantive evidence, but had themselves introduced it at trial.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision in favor of Mercantile Bank.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reliance on Courter’s Affidavit as Substantive Evidence | Trial court erred by using the affidavit as substantive, not just impeachment, evidence | Affidavit was properly admitted and relied upon | No error; affidavit was properly admitted and used |
| Disparate Treatment Under FHA and ECOA | Presented sufficient evidence showing different treatment from similarly situated white peers | Took actions for legitimate business reasons | Plaintiffs failed to prove disparate treatment or pretext |
| Burden-shifting and Pretext | Pretext not adequately considered at trial | Legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons established | Trial court properly applied burden-shifting & pretext |
| Summary Disposition/Dismissal of Claims | Trial court incorrectly dismissed certain claims at summary disposition | Dismissal warranted by lack of evidence | Dismissal of claims affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Babin v. Mich. Protection and Advocacy Serv., Inc., 18 F.3d 337 (6th Cir. 1994) (prima facie FHA discrimination standard)
- White v. Dep't of Transp., 334 Mich. App. 98 (2020) (Michigan application of discrimination burden-shifting framework)