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.

Knight v. Bank of America

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

November 8, 2016

TONYA KNIGHT, Plaintiff,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 9) AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. 11) AND DISMISSING CASE[1]

          AVERN COHN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. Introduction

         This is a case challenging a foreclosure following a default on a mortgage. The property subject to the mortgage was sold at a foreclosure sale to defendant Bank of America and the redemption period has expired. Nevertheless, plaintiff Tonya Knight, proceeding pro se, contends she has a right to the property. The complaint makes the following claims, phrased by plaintiff as follows:

Count I Violation of MCL 600.3220
Count II Violation of MCL 600.3208
Count II[2] Violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
Count III Equitable Relief to Extend the Redemption Period
Count IV Fraud

         Before the Court is Bank of America's motion for judgment on the pleadings, to dismiss or for summary judgment. Also before the Court is plaintiff's motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. For the reasons that follow, Bank of America's motion will be granted, plaintiff's motion will be denied and the case will be dismissed.

         II. Background

         A. The Loan, Mortgage, and Foreclosure Proceedings

         On September 18, 2007 plaintiff borrowed $154, 050.00 from The Prime Financial Group, Inc. (Prime Financial) to help finance the purchase real property in Southfield, Michigan. The loan is evidenced in a note. Plaintiff also granted Prime Financial a mortgage interest in the property as security for the note. The mortgage was later assigned to Bank of America. Plaintiff defaulted on the mortgage obligation by failing to make monthly payments. Plaintiff last made a payment on July 1, 2010.

         Due to plaintiff's non-payment, the mortgage was referred to the law offices of Trott Law, P.C., to commence foreclosure by advertisement proceedings under M.C.L. § 600.3201, et seq. In accordance with M.C.L. § 600.3208, the notice of mortgage foreclosure sale was published in the Oakland County Legal News for four (4) consecutive weeks commencing on March 20, 2012 and ending on April 10, 2012 (see sheriff's deed, attached as Exhibit D to Bank of America's Motion, at ¶ 6 -Affidavit of Publication). In further compliance with M.C.L. § 600.3208, the notice of mortgage foreclosure sale was posted in a conspicuous place on the Property on March 21, 2012 (see Exhibit D at ¶ 4 -Affidavit of Posting).

         A sheriff's sale was originally scheduled for April 17, 2012. However, the sale was adjourned on a weekly basis from April 17, 2012 to November 24, 2015 by posting a copy of the notice of adjournment before or at the time of sale and at the place of sale (copies of the notices of adjournment are collectively attached as Exhibit E). A sheriff's sale was eventually held on November 24, 2015 at which Bank of America was the successful purchaser. Bank of America was granted a sheriff's deed dated November 24, 2015 which was recorded on December 3, 2015 in Liber 48850, Page 151 of the Oakland County Records.

         Under M.C.L. § 600.3240(8), there was a six (6) month statutory period to redeem the property which expired on May 24, 2016. Plaintiff did not redeem the property. Instead, plaintiff filed suit on May 10, 2016, days before the redemption period expired.

         B. Plaintiff's Prior Litigation

         Plaintiff has filed two (2) prior lawsuits during the pendency of her foreclosure proceedings.

         First, on August 8, 2011, plaintiff sued Prime Financial and Bank of America in federal district court claiming (1) breach of contract, (2) RESPA violations, (3) fraudulent misrepresentation, (4) negligent misrepresentation. Knight-Bonner[3] v. Prime Financial, 11-13436 (E.D. Mich.). The district court dismissed all of her claims, except her RESPA claim against Bank of America. The case was referred to a magistrate judge before whom the parties filed dispositive motions. A magistrate judge recommended that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be denied, that Bank of America's motion for summary judgment be granted, and that the complaint be dismissed. Plaintiff objected. The district court adopted the reports and recommendations and dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of her RESPA claim.

         Meanwhile, on March 22, 2012, plaintiff sued Bank of America and Prime Financial in Oakland County Circuit Court claiming (1) breach of contract, (2) fraudulent misrepresentation, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress. As best as can be gleaned, plaintiff's claims surrounded an alleged improper account number change between Prime Financial and Bank of America. Bank of America moved for summary disposition based on res judicata due to the earlier filed federal case. The circuit court granted the motion. Plaintiff appealed. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, concluding res judicata did not apply. Following remand, Bank of America again moved for summary disposition on the grounds none of the counts of the complaint had merit. Plaintiff did not file a response; instead, she filed a motion to amend the complaint seeking to add parties and new claims. The circuit court granted Bank of America's motion. The circuit court also denied plaintiff's motion to amend as untimely and prejudicial. The circuit court later denied reconsideration and plaintiff's post-judgment motion for relief. Plaintiff attempted to appeal; however, the Michigan Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as untimely.

         III. ...


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.