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.

Haywood v. Roundpoint Mortgage Servicing Corp.

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

June 28, 2018

CYNTHIA HAYWOOD, Plaintiff,
v.
ROUNDPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING CORPORATION, Defendant.

          David R. Grand United States Magistrate Judge

          OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 8)

          Paul D. Borman United States District Judge

         Plaintiff Cynthia Haywood filed this action in the Circuit Court of Washtenaw County on December 1, 2017, seeking to have the June 2016 foreclosure of her home set aside. Defendant RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation removed the action to this Court the following month, and now moves to dismiss the matter for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

         For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds Defendant's argument that Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege facts entitling her to legal relief to be meritorious. Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

         I. BACKGROUND

         A. Factual Allegations

         The subject property in this dispute is situated at 1726 Weeping Willow Court in Ypsilanti, MI. (ECF No. 1, Notice of Removal Ex. A, State Court Complaint (hereinafter “Compl.”) ¶ 4.) Plaintiff financed the purchase of the subject property in September 2014 with a $152, 192 loan from non-party Movement Mortgage LLC, which was secured by a mortgage on the subject property. (Compl. ¶ 6; ECF No. 8, Def.'s Mot. Ex. 1, Mortgage.) The mortgage was later assigned to Defendant on January 19, 2016. (Def.'s Mot. Ex. 2, Assignment of Mortgage.)

         Plaintiff alleges that sometime in “early 2016, ” Defendant advised her of its intention to foreclose on Plaintiff's mortgage in March 2016. (Compl. ¶ 12.) Plaintiff further alleges that she filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy on March 9, 2016, but that her bankruptcy case was dismissed shortly thereafter, “primarily because the plan was underfunded.” (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14.)

         On March 22, 2017, according to the Complaint, Plaintiff “was forced to file another Chapter 13 [b]ankruptcy . . . that was ultimately dismissed because Plaintiff had opened up the lines of communication with Defendant to do a modification which would save over $10, 000.00 versus a Chapter 13.” (Compl. ¶ 15.) Plaintiff alleges that she had numerous conversations over the next several weeks with Defendant, to whom she sent “several documents . . . to facilitate” the potential modification. (Compl. ¶ 16.) Plaintiff then alleges that her second bankruptcy petition was dismissed on May 23, 2017 while she “pursued the modification, ” but that the subject property was foreclosed upon in June 2017-a fact which she was surprised to learn “weeks after” the foreclosure sale was held.[1] (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18.)

         In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that the foreclosure proceedings were defective, and therefore created no enforceable legal interest on Defendant's part in the subject property, because Defendant failed to comply with the Michigan statute governing foreclosures by advertisement. (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 21 (citing Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3201 et seq.).) Specifically, Plaintiff claims that Defendant failed to post conspicuous notice of the foreclosure sale on the subject property within 15 days after publishing the notice in a newspaper, in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3208. (Compl. ¶ 20.) Finally, Plaintiff alleges that she was prejudiced by Defendant's actions because had she had been afforded proper notice of the foreclosure, “she would have been in a position to show up to the Sheriff[']s Sale and redeem her property, attempt to sale [sic] her property prior to the foreclosure sale, file for Bankruptcy Relief under the Bankruptcy Code, etc.” (Compl. ¶ 22.)

         B. Procedural History

         Plaintiff filed this action in the Circuit Court for the County of Washtenaw on December 1, 2017, and Defendant timely removed it to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1, Notice of Removal.) Defendant filed the instant Motion to Dismiss on February 7, 2018. (ECF No. 8, Def.'s Mot.) Plaintiff did not file a brief in response, and Defendant did not file a reply brief.

         The Court conducted a hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on April 26, 2018, at which counsel for both parties appeared.

         II. ...


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.