United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER DEEMING MOOT PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO DOCKET REASSIGNMENT AND REQUEST FOR CASE TO BE RETURNED TO PRIOR JUDGE AND DOCKET NUMBER, DENYING PLAINITFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE AND REMAND TO STATE COURT, AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS[#17]
DENISE PAGE HOOD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
This case involves an attempt to set aside a foreclosure sale after the expiration of the redemption period. Now before the Court are Plaintiffs, John Roche and Sue Radulovich’s, Objections to Docket Reassignment and Request for Case to be Returned to Prior Judge and Docket Number, Motion to Strike and Remand to State Court, and Request for Sanctions. [Docket No. 17, filed April 28, 2014] For the reasons stated below, the Court DEEMS MOOT Plaintiffs’ objection to docket reassignment and request for the case to be returned to this Court. Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is DENIED. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike and remand to state court is also DENIED.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
On or about February 24, 1999, Plaintiff Sue Radulovich purchased a property with a legal description of Lot 17, Grosse Pointe Shores Realty Co. Subdivision. There were two parcels: Parcel 40-006-01-0017-001 (Gross Pointe Woods) and 74-002-01-0017-001 (Gross Pointe Shores), collectively and commonly known as 505 Hampton Road, Gross Pointe Woods, MI 48236. Ms. Radulovich executed a mortgage with Standard Federal Bank for the property known as parcel 40-006-01-0017-001. Ms. Radulovich also executed a Note as security on the Mortgage. On or about April 2, 2001, Standard bank became defunct. Plaintiffs allege that upon information and belief, they did not owe Standard Federal Bank any funds. On or about July 1, 2002, Ms. Radulovich quit claimed the property to herself and her husband, John Roche as tenants in the entirety. On June 18, 2009, Standard Federal Bank assigned the mortgage to CitiMortgage Inc. (“CMI) and recorded its interest on June 29, 2009.
In February 2009, Plaintiffs contacted Defendant CMI to discuss loan modification due to Plaintiffs’ financial hardships. Defendant CMI advised Plaintiffs that they would not be eligible for a loan modification program unless they missed two payments. Plaintiffs missed payments in May and June 2009 as a result. Plaintiffs did not sign the loan modification program until July 29, 2009. Plaintiffs made a timely payment under the modification program. They were advised by Defendant CMI that they were not in foreclosure but in a loan modification trial period. Plaintiffs received a Sheriff’s Deed in the mail and Defendant CMI assured them that they were not in foreclosure. The Property was sold at a sheriff’s sale to Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”) on July 15, 2009.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Trott & Trott drafted the Sheriff’s Deed and other documents with the wrong name and property address. Defendant CMI informed Plaintiffs that it would not accept any further modification payments because Freddie Mac owned the Property. Defendant CMI also stated that it was working to reverse the foreclosure. Defendant Trott & Trott filed an affidavit expunging the sheriff’s sale with the Wayne County Register of Deeds in April 2010.
In December 2010, Defendant CMI informed Plaintiffs that Trott & Trott had reversed the foreclosure and that Plaintiffs could resume making modification payments. However, Defendant CMI would not accept the payment when Plaintiffs sent it because Freddie Mac owned the Property. Defendant CMI informed Plaintiffs’ failure to make modification payments caused the Property to go back into foreclosure. Plaintiffs conducted a records search and discovered that there was nothing to indicate that the foreclosure had been expunged and demanded documents from Defendant CMI. Defendant CMI advised Plaintiffs that they would be placed back on the modification plan. Plaintiffs provided requested income statements but Defendant CMI did not provide documents showing that the first foreclosure had been reversed. Defendant Trott & Trott sent a letter in November 2010 stating that the foreclosure was reversed but the letter had the wrong name and address. Plaintiffs informed Defendant Trott & Trott of the mistake. The Property was sold again at a sheriff’s sale to Freddie Mac on June 22, 2011. The redemption period expired on December 22, 2011.
III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiffs John Roche and Sue Radulovich filed the present action pro se in Wayne County Circuit Court on December 22, 2011. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege negligence and fraud, and request that this Court set aside a foreclosure sale and void or cancel the assignment of the recorded mortgage. Plaintiffs also claim wrongful foreclosure and request for injunctive relief, breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraudulent business practices, quiet title, slander of title, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Defendants initially removed the action to this Court on January 20, 2012. At that time, Freddie Mac had filed an action in Grosse Pointe Municipal Court requesting that the court evict Plaintiffs. The Grosse Pointe Municipal Court found that there were “numerous ambiguities” in the assignment of the mortgage and that the mortgage did not “encompass [Plaintiffs’] entire property.” The municipal court concluded that it could not “summarily enlarge [the] mortgage.” Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration. On September 28, 2012, the Court entered an Order Dismissing the Action without Prejudice. [Case No. 12-CV-10266, Docket No. 14] The Court determined that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, see District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), prohibited this Court from “making a decision that would have the effect of reversing the municipal court’s decision.” On April 8, 2014, following reopening of the case in Wayne County Circuit Court, Defendant Freddie Mac removed the case to this Court for a second time. [Docket No. 1]
In the instant filing, Plaintiffs raise three arguments: (1) Plaintiffs object to the reassignment of the instant case to the Honorable Judge Mark A. Goldsmith and request that the case be returned to this Court; (2) Plaintiffs move the Court to strike what they deem to be an improper or untimely removal and remand this case to state court; and (3) Plaintiffs request sanctions claiming that Defendants “knowingly ignor[ed] removal rules in an effort to forum shop and avoid [this] docket and the Circuit Court’s adverse rulings.” The Court will ...