Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Mandingo v. PNC Bank National Association

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

March 8, 2017



          STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III United States District Court Judge.

         Plaintiff 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.


         In 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.

         In 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 Log).

         Before 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, PgID 278.

         In June 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.

         On 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.


         The 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 Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)).

         A fact 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 Cir. 1987).


         Mandingo 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.

         I. Common Law and ...

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.