Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sadik v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

July 14, 2015

LINDA SADIK, Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, CITIMORTGAGE, INC., AND KKJ INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 24)

PAUL D. BORMAN, District Judge.

This mortgage foreclosure action was originally filed in the 6th Circuit Court, County of Oakland, Michigan on August 4, 2014 against Defendants Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac"), Citimortgage, Inc. and KKJ Investment Holdings, LLC ("KKJ"). (ECF No. 1, Removal). On December 22, 2014, Defendant Freddie Mac removed the action to Court based on 12 U.S.C. § 1452(f) which allows Freddie Mac to remove any civil action in a state court to which Freddie Mac is a party to the United States District Court in the place where the action is pending. Defendant KKJ then filed a counterclaim against Plaintiff seeking to quiet title of the property at issue, discharge the Notice of Lis Pendens filed by Plaintiff, and requesting damages for Plaintiff's alleged slander of title and wrongful possession. (ECF No. 11).

Thereafter, on March 2, 2015, shortly after a substitution in Plaintiff's counsel, Plaintiff filed, through her new counsel, an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 19). All of the Defendants have filed answers to the Amended Complaint. (ECF Nos. 20, 22, 23).

Now before the Court is Defendant Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation's ("Defendant Freddie Mac") Motion for Dismissal pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(c) and 56 filed on March 31, 2015. (ECF No. 24). Plaintiff Linda Sadik, through counsel, filed a response on April 23, 2015. (ECF No. 25). Defendant Freddic Mac did not file a reply.

Having reviewed and considered the parties' briefs, the Court finds that the allegations and arguments are sufficiently set forth such that oral argument is not required. Therefore, the Court will decide the Defendant Freddie Mac's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(c) and 56 without oral argument. See ED Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2).

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff and her now deceased husband, Allen Sadik (collectively, "Sadiks") purchased property located at 2721 Greenlawn Avenue, Commerce Township, Michigan (the "Property"), on November 18, 1999 and recorded the deed in Liber 21006, Page 32 in the Oakland County Records on January 21, 2000. (Am. Compl. ¶ 8).

In 2004, the Sadiks refinanced the Property, and issued a Promissory Note to ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. ("AMRO") for the amount of $238, 650.00 which was secured by a mortgage (the "Mortgage") on the Property that was recorded on June 7, 2004 in Liber 33424, Pages 475-494 of the Oakland County Records. ( Id. ¶ 9, Ex. 2, Mortgage). The Promissory Note provided that the loan must be repaid on or by June 1, 2009. (Ex. 2, at 1). The Mortgage contained also contained a "balloon rider" that allowed the Sadiks to refinance or obtain a new loan with a maturity date of 2034 if certain conditions were met. ( Id. at 13). Sometime thereafter, Defendant Citimortgage obtained the mortgage from AMRO. ( Id. ¶ 10). Plaintiff alleges this transfer was not recorded. ( Id. 11-12).

In 2006, Plaintiff's husband passed away. ( Id. ¶ 16). Some time thereafter, Plaintiff allegedly contacted Defendant Citimortgage and requested a loan modification. ( Id. ¶ 21). Plaintiff alleges that she was advised to continue to make her monthly payments while the loan modification was "worked out". ( Id. ¶¶ 21-23). In March 2014, Defendant Citimortgage rejected her payment and Plaintiff became aware that Defendant Citimortgage may have "converted some or all of the loan payments" she made from May 2009 through March 2014. (Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 23-28). Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Citimortgage made numerous mistakes in applying her payments, miscalculations regarding her account, and inexplicable charges for, inter alia, inspections, appraisals, attorney fees, as well as "multiple fraudulent charges" for escrow advances. ( Id. at ¶¶ 29-30).

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Citimortgage began foreclosure proceedings against Plaintiff and the Property which ultimately resulted in a Sheriff's Sale on February 4, 2014. ( Id. ¶ 32). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant KKJ Investment Holdings, LLC ("KKJ") purchased the Property at the Sheriff's Sale for a price of $233, 170.25. ( Id. ¶ 33).

After the six month statutory redemption period expired on August 4, 2014, "Ralph Roberts Realty" filed an eviction proceeding in 52-1 District Court in Novi, Michigan against Plaintiff. ( Id. ¶ 35). At some point Defendant KKJ intervened as a plaintiff in that eviction proceeding. ( Id. ¶ 36). The eviction proceeding was then stayed pending the resolution of this case. ( Id. ).

Plaintiff sets forth six counts in her Amended Complaint: (1) "Order setting aside wrongful foreclosure sale, quieting title, reinstating mortgage and restoring purchase price to KKJ"; (2) Breach of Contract; (3) Promissory/Equitable Estoppel; (4) Embezzlement and/or Conversion; (5) Fraud; and (6) Unjust Enrichment. Each of the first five counts only reference Defendant Citimortgage in the respective requested relief, while Count VI seeks damages from both Defendants Citimortgage and KKJ ( see Am. Compl. ¶¶ 88-91).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

"Motions for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) are analyzed under the same de novo standards as motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)." Sensations, Inc. v. City of Grand Rapids, 526 F.3d 291, 295 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Penny/Ohlmann/Nieman, Inc. v. Miami Valley Pension Corp., 399 F.3d 692, 697 (6th Cir. 2005)). Indeed, "the legal standards for adjudicating Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 12(c) motions are the same..." Lindsay v. Yates, 498 F.3d 434, 437 n. 5 (6th Cir. 2007). Therefore, "all wellpleaded material allegations of the pleadings of the opposing party must be taken as true, and the motion may be granted only if the moving party ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.