The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Victoria A. Roberts
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 9, 2006, Plaintiff Carl W. Trubiano obtained a $276,000.00 loan from John Adams Mortgage Company to purchase 6159 Ridge Hollow Lane in Davisburg, Michigan ("the Property"). As security for the indebtedness, Trubiano granted Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS") a mortgage on the Property.
On April 23, 2008, MERS assigned the mortgage to Chase Home Finance LLC. Trubiano defaulted on the mortgage, and Chase executed a Sheriff's sale on May 27, 2008. Trubiano had until November 27, 2008 to redeem the property for $283,916.97 plus interest at $46.47 per diem from the date of the sale to the date of redemption.
On November 12, 2008, Trubiano quit claimed the Property to Joyce Joseph without Chase's knowledge.
On November 18, 2008, Chase sent Trubiano a Conditional Approval of Sales Contract:
This letter will confirm Chase Home Finance LLC's (Chase) approval of the sales contract pertaining to [the Property] for $180,000.00 between [Chase and Trubiano]. Please be advised this is not the final approval for the referenced sale. (Emphasis added).
After learning of the quit claim to Ms. Joseph, Chase says it revoked its conditional approval of the short sale.
On May 6, 2009, Trubiano filed a First Amended Verified Complaint in the Oakland County Circuit Court for breach of contract and misrepresentation. Trubiano alleges that Chase breached the purchase agreement that allowed him to purchase the property for $180,000.00, and misrepresented the content of the purchase agreement.
The case was removed to this Court on May 22, 2009.
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment. (Doc. #15). Defendants ask the Court to dismiss Trubiano's First Amended Verified Complaint in its entirety.
Trubiano did not respond.
When reviewing a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion, the trial court "must construe the complaint liberally in the plaintiff's favor and accept as true all factual allegations and permissible inferences therein." Gazette v. City of Pontiac, 41 F.3d 1061, 1064 (6th Cir. 1994) (citing Westlake v. Lucas, 537 F.2d 857, 858 (6th Cir. 1976)); see also Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 377 (6th Cir. 1995). Because a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion rests upon the pleadings rather than the evidence, ...