In this case, Plaintiffs executed a promissory note promising to pay $162,600 to the Bank. The note was secured by a mortgage on plaintiffs’ home. Plaintiffs entered into four loan modifications with the Bank and requested a fifth loan modification, which was denied.
In 2014, the Bank sent plaintiffs a letter denying their request for modification due to insufficient monthly income to sustain payments under any available loan modification program. The letter further stated that plaintiffs had the right to appeal the denial within 30 days. Plaintiffs appealed. At this point, the parties disagree on the facts.
Plaintiffs allege that they never received a response to their appeal. The Bank, however, allege that it sent its decision on the appeal to plaintiffs.
March 2015, the Bank sent a letter to plaintiffs advising that it was closing its file. October 2015, the Bank posted a notice on the premises stating the property was going to be sold November 2015. The notice contained an affidavit of posting, which was notarized. The sale was postponed a total of five times. The foreclosure sale was finally held on December 2015, and the property was sold. The six-month statutory redemption period expired on June 2016. Plaintiffs did not redeem the property.
Plaintiffs filed a three-count complaint alleging wrongful foreclosure and a due process violation.
Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the foreclosure after the expiration of the redemption period. Once the statutory redemption period lapses, courts can only entertain the setting aside of a foreclosure sale where the mortgagor has made a clear showing of fraud, or irregularity.
Plaintiffs’ allegation of fraud or irregularity is their assertion that the Bank failed to respond to their appeal of the denial of their request for a loan modification and failed to notify them of the adjournments of the Sheriff’s sale. The bank provided five copies of notices of adjournment of foreclosure sale. At the bottom of the last notice adjourning the sale to December 2015, is a one-line oath by the deputy sheriff stating that he posted the notice of adjournment before or at the time of the sale and at the place of the sale. Plaintiffs did not address or provide any evidence to rebut the bank’s proof of notice. Further, plaintiffs failed to show how defendants’ failure to respond to their appeal affected the foreclosure proceedings itself.
Accordingly, plaintiffs’ assertions are insufficient to meet the requisite fraud or prejudice to set aside the foreclosure sale.
Whether you are trying to save your home from foreclosure or your home loan is upside down and you are unsure of what you should do, you can find the sound advice and helpful support you require at Aldrich Legal Services in Plymouth, Michigan. We have helped many people find solutions to the real estate issues that you now face.
Contact us today to schedule a free consultation and learn more about options that may be available to you.