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.

Bank of America, N.A. v. M Rashid Holdings, LLC

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

October 31, 2017

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Plaintiff,
v.
M RASHID HOLDINGS, LLC, and MASHIYAT RASHID, Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER [#7] and MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING [#8].

          Denise Page Hood Chief Judge, United States District Court.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff filed this mortgage foreclosure action on September 19, 2017, when it was assigned to the Honorable Avern Cohn. On September 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Appointment of Receiver (“Receiver Motion”) [#7] and Motion to Expedite Hearing on the Receiver Motion. [#8] The Receiver Motion has been fully briefed. On October 16, 2017, this action was reassigned to the undersigned as a companion case to criminal case 17-20465 (the “Criminal Case”). A hearing was set for and held on October 27, 2017. By virtue of the hearing held on October 27, 2017, the Court GRANTED the Motion to Expedite Hearing. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the Receiver Motion.

         II. BACKGROUND

         Defendant M Rashid Holdings LLC (“Rashid Holdings”) is the owner of property commonly known as 2990 W Grand Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan (the “Property”). Plaintiff issued a loan of approximately $2 million to Rashid Holdings dated January 30, 2017 (the “Loan Agreement”), with a mortgage on the Property securing the loan. Defendant Mashiyat Rashid is a guarantor of the mortgage on the Property.

         On July 6, 2017, Defendant Rashid was indicted for alleged attempt and conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and related claims (the Criminal Case), and the Criminal Case remains pending. On October 6, 2017, the Court entered an Order regarding the Property in the Criminal Case. That Order provided for, among other things, the appointment of a receiver for the Property with the power and authority to maintain and sell the Property. Until a receiver is appointed, all expenses related to the Property require approval of Pretrial Services.

         III. APPLICABLE LAW & ANALYSIS

         A. Applicable Law

         The appointment of a receiver is a matter of judicial discretion, and the Court has inherent authority to appoint one. U.S. v. Prod. Plated Plastics, Inc., 61 F.3d 904, at *7 (6th Cir. 1995) (recognizing inherent power of courts to appoint receiver); Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass'n v. Mapletree Investors Ltd. Partnership, 2010 WL 1753112, at *3 (E.D. Mich. 2010); Liberte Capital Group, LLC v. Capwill, 462 F.3d 543, 551 (6th Cir. 2006). “A district court enjoys broad equitable powers to appoint a receiver over assets disputed in litigation before the court. The receiver's role, and the district court's purpose in the appointment, is to safeguard the disputed assets, administer the property as suitable, and to assist the district court in achieving a final, equitable distribution of the assets if necessary.” Liberte Capital, 462 F.3d at 551.

         B. Analysis

         The parties agree that the appointment of a receiver for the Property is appropriate, and the parties acknowledge that the Court ordered the appointment of a receiver in its October 6, 2017 Order in the Criminal Case. Accordingly, the Receiver Motion is granted.

         The parties disagree on who should be appointed as receiver, and each party has proposed a person for the Court to appoint as receiver for the Property. Plaintiff seeks the appointment of Michael A. Stevenson, and in their brief, Defendants sought the appointment of Michael Kalil. At the hearing, Defendants' argument focused more on having Michael Kalil retained as the manager of the Property than as receiver for the Property. The parties acknowledged that Plaintiff and its proposed receiver have offered to retain Michael Kalil and his company (NIA Farbman) as the manager of the Property.

         The Court notes that Defendants cannot control the terms of the order of receivership.[1] The terms of bond for Defendant Mayishat Rashid (prior to his bond being revoked) provided that he was not to have any involvement in the control of the Property, and it appears to the Court that he likely violated those conditions in a number of ways.

         The Court appoints Michael A. Stevenson as receiver for the Property. The Court declines Defendants' request to appoint Michael Kalil as receiver for the Property and leaves the appointment of any Property ...


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.