United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
JENNIFER JOHNSON and KEITH HILL, as legal guardian of JANELLE HILL, Plaintiffs,
PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, PINGORA LOAN SERVICING, LLC, FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, and PRIORITY RESIDENTIAL SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
V. PARKER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
action arises out of a residential mortgage foreclosure.
Plaintiffs currently seek a preliminary injunction extending
the expiration of the redemption period and enjoining their
eviction from the foreclosed property. The redemption period
has expired, however, and thus the Court only considers
Plaintiffs' request to enjoin their eviction. Upon
review, the Court is not persuaded that the issuance of a
preliminary injunction is proper and therefore denies
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
December 15, 2014, Plaintiffs Jennifer Johnson and Janelle
Hill, by Keith M. Hill, attorney in fact, purchased a parcel
of real property located at 6986 Lexington Drive, West
Bloomfield, MI (the “Property”). (Defs.'
Resp. Br. at 1.) In order to finance the purchase, Plaintiffs
obtained a loan in the amount of $328, 000 from Mortgage
Solutions of Colorado, LLC, for which they executed a
Mortgage identifying Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) as the nominee for the
lender. (Id. & Ex. A.) The Mortgage was properly
recorded on June 2, 2015. (Id.)
defaulted on the Mortgage shortly thereafter, on September
28, 2015, and Defendant PHH Mortgage Corporation
(“PHH”) sent them a breach notice. (Id.
Ex. B.) PHH notified Plaintiffs that they had thirty-five
days from the date of the letter to cure the default.
were subsequent attempts at loss mitigation, with Plaintiffs
failing to complete the necessary steps to complete the
application and then to accept and satisfy the trial loan
modification. (Id. Exs. C & D.) Plaintiffs
allege in their Complaint that they were confused by the
information they received from PHH and therefore engaged
Defendant Priority Residential Solutions, Inc.
(“PRS”) to assist them with the loan modification
process. (Compl. ¶ 31.) Plaintiffs allege that their
subsequent failure to accept and complete the trial loan
modification is due to PRS' failure to communicate their
acceptance to PHH. (Id. ¶¶ 42-45.)
Plaintiffs' loan was referred to Trott Law, P.C. to
initiate foreclosure by advertisement proceedings. On August
8, 2016, a notice was sent to Plaintiffs indicating the debt
was being accelerated and foreclosure had commenced.
(Id. Ex. E.) In response, Plaintiffs again attempted
to engage PHH in loss mitigation discussions, but they again
failed to provide a complete application and PHH declined to
complete the review process. (Id. Ex. F.)
to the foreclosure sale, the Mortgage was assigned to
Defendant Pingora Loan Servicing, LLC (“Pingora”)
pursuant to an Assignment of Mortgage. (Id. Ex. G.)
The Assignment was recorded on September 15, 2016.
Sheriff's Sale of the Property was held on October 18,
2016, with Defendant Federal National Mortgage Association
(“Fannie Mae”) as the successful bidder.
(Id. Ex. H.) The six-month statutory redemption
period for the Property expired on April 18, 2017, with
Plaintiffs failing to redeem.
earlier, Plaintiffs initiated this action in Michigan state
court and filed a motion for temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction. A state court judge entered an
ex-parte TRO on April 18, 2017. (ECF No. 1-6.) The order
Defendants from evicting Plaintiffs, or otherwise assigning,
conveying or otherwise transferring the Subject Property at
issue to a third party, pending a hearing relative to
Plaintiffs' request for a Preliminary and/or Permanent
Injunction seeking the same relief through trial.
(Id.) The state court judge set a hearing for May
17, 2017. (Id.)
before the hearing, the served defendants (i.e., all
defendants except Priority Residential Solutions, Inc.)
removed Plaintiffs' Complaint to federal court based on
original subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF ...