United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III United States District Court Judge.
Amelita Mandingo brought suit against Defendants PNC National
Bank Association and Trott & Trott, P.C., alleging six
causes of action related to a foreclosure on her home. The
Court dismissed the claims against Defendant Trott &
Trott because Mandingo failed to timely serve them with
process. PNC's motion for summary judgment followed. For
the reasons stated below, the Court will grant the motion.
2006, Mandingo granted a mortgage on her property, 200 W.
Boston Blvd., Detroit, Michigan 48206, to National City Bank
of Indiana, which then sold it to the Government National
Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae). ECF 14-2, PgID 147-48
(Note); ECF 14-3, PgID 150-57 (Mortgage). National City Bank
merged with PNC and repurchased the loan from Ginnie Mae. ECF
14-5, PgID 183. In 2009, Mandingo filed for bankruptcy; the
Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Plan required Mandingo to continue to
make mortgage payments to PNC. ECF 14-8, PgID 265.
October 2011, however, Mandingo began to fall behind on
mortgage payments. See ECF 14-6, PgID 209-12
(October 2011 payment on November 1, 2011; November 2011
payment on December 23, 2011; December 2011 payment on
January 27, 2012; January 2012 payment on March 12, 2012;
February 2012 payment on March 23, 2012; March 2012 payment
on April 16, 2012; April 2012 payment on May 29, 2012; May
2012 payment on July 6, 2012); see also ECF 14-9,
PgID 272 (Plaintiff's Payment Log). On August 2, 2012,
Mandingo and PNC stipulated to the bankruptcy court that she
owed $18, 263.75 to PNC in delinquent monthly mortgage
payments for June, July, and August of 2012. ECF 14-10, PgID
274-76. In the stipulation, Mandingo agreed to pay PNC
"equal monthly installments of no less than $3,
043.96/ea commencing September 1, 2012, in addition to
maintaining subsequently required payments[.]"
Id. at 275. Also, Mandingo agreed that if she failed
to make the payments, PNC could "file a Notice of
Default and submit to the Court for entry an [sic] order
vacating the automatic stay and co-debtor stay, as
applicable, no further notice, hearing, or motion being
required[.]" Id. Mandingo made the first
required payment in September 2012, and admits that she
failed to make any further payments. ECF 14-4, PgID 171;
see also ECF 14-9, PgID 272 (Plaintiff's Payment
PNC filed the Notice of Default, however, it offered to allow
Mandingo to apply for a loan modification. ECF 14-12, PgID
281-91. Mandingo submitted several applications and received
a written denial of each application from PNC that stated the
reasons for the denial. ECF 14-4, PgID 169-70; ECF 14-13,
PgID 293-302. PNC filed a Notice of Default with the
bankruptcy court and, on May 31, 2013, the bankruptcy court
entered an order that allowed PNC to pursue its "federal
and/or state law rights to the property." ECF 14-11,
2013, Mandingo applied for assistance from Step Forward
Michigan. ECF 14- 14, PgID 308-09. She was assisted by a
housing counselor, Munai Nawash. After a months-long
application process, Step Forward Michigan denied
Mandingo's application because her assets exceeded the
amount permitted for eligibility. Id. at 310. To
reduce her total assets and obtain eligibility for the
program, Mandingo and Nawash called PNC to make a $13, 600
payment to PNC in October 2013. ECF 14-4, PgID 173; ECF
14-10, PgID 311. During this phone call, Mandingo, Nawash,
and PNC discussed no other topics related to her mortgage.
Id. Apart from the phone call, Mandingo had no other
communications with PNC while she was applying to Step
Forward Michigan. ECF 14-10, PgID 311. In late December 2013,
Step Forward denied Mandingo's application because her
past due amount exceeded $30, 000. ECF 14-10, PgID 312.
April 3, 2014, PNC notified Mandingo that she was in default
of her loan and that she needed to pay $46, 516.47 by May 3,
2014 to cure the default. ECF 14-15, PgID 319-20; ECF 14-4,
PgID 174-75. Mandingo failed to cure the default. On May 20,
2014, PNC accelerated the loan balance, referred the matter
to their foreclosure attorneys, and notified Mandingo. ECF
14-16, PgID 322; ECF 14-4, PgID 175. PNC posted a notice of
the foreclosure sale on the property and in the Detroit Legal
News on May 30, 2014, June 6, 2014, June 13, 2014, and June
20, 2014. ECF 14-17, PgID 326-27. On January 8, 2015, PNC
foreclosed its mortgage interest in the property through a
Sheriff's sale and purchased the property for $265,
711.24. Id. at 324. The statutory redemption period
expired on July 8, 2015. Id. at 327. Mandingo did
not attempt to redeem the property. ECF 14-4, PgID 175. On
June 8, 2015, however, Mandingo filed suit.
Court must grant summary judgment "if the movant shows
that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The moving party must identify specific
portions of the record "which it believes demonstrate
the absence of a genuine issue of material fact."
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
Once the moving party has met their burden, the non-moving
party may not simply rest on the pleadings, but must present
"specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue
for trial." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith
Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (quoting
is material if proof of that fact would establish or refute
an essential element of the cause of action or defense.
Kendall v. Hoover Co., 751 F.2d 171, 174 (6th Cir.
1984). A dispute over material facts is genuine "if the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In
considering a motion for summary judgment, the Court must
view the facts and draw all reasonable inferences "in
the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." 60
Ivy St. Corp. v. Alexander, 822 F.2d 1432, 1435 (6th
raises four grounds for relief against PNC: (1) common law
slander of title and statutory slander of title, Mich. Comp.
Laws § 565.108; (2) quiet title; (3) innocent and
negligent misrepresentation; and (4) fraud based on
intentional misrepresentation, silent fraud, and bad-faith
promises. PNC argues that Mandingo's claims fail either
as a matter of law or because she cannot show that record
evidence creates a genuine dispute of material fact.
Common Law and ...