Now Accepting New Clients!

REAL ESTATE 31: Bank agreed to not proceed with foreclosure if defendant made modified loan payments.

In 1998, defendant purchased the residential property at issue with a loan that was secured by a mortgage assigned to Bank A. Defendant defaulted on the loan in September 2013, and Bank A initiated this case, seeking foreclosure of the mortgage in April 2014. The trial court entered a default judgment of foreclosure in October 2014, which defendant did not appeal.

In May 2015, Bank A and defendant entered into an agreement (the Trial Plan), temporarily modifying the loan. Bank A agreed to not proceed with a foreclosure sale if defendant made payments of $1,382.62 for three months. In return, defendant would be entitled to receive a permanent loan modification. Defendant proceeded to timely remit each of the three scheduled payments to Bank A, entitling her to permanent modification of the loan.

Therefore, because of plaintiff’s compliance with the Trial Plan, Bank A cancelled its scheduled foreclosure sale. Bank A then assigned the mortgage to plaintiff, which reviewed defendant for a loan modification. The permanent loan modification was dependent upon a commitment for title insurance on the property. The commitment raised two federal tax liens in the name of defendant’s husband as exceptions to the commitment for title insurance.

Taking exception to these liens, plaintiff denied the loan modification and scheduled a foreclosure sale for December 2016. Before the scheduled sale, however, defendant obtained a temporary restraining order from the trial court.

The Internal Revenue Service eventually confirmed that the two federal tax liens did not attach to the property.

Defendant then filed a motion for summary disposition requesting reinstatement of the trial plan and preventing plaintiff from proceeding with a foreclosure sale pursuant to the terms of the trial plan. Plaintiff failed to appear at the hearing on the motion for summary disposition, and the trial court entered a judgment in favor of defendant in December 2017.

Plaintiff’s predecessor in interest entered into an agreement (the Trial Plan) with defendant to permanently modify the loan, provided that defendant made three timely payments of an adjustment amount, which she did. This permanent modification was also contingent upon a commitment for title insurance on the property and the only issue with the commitment was two federal tax liens in defendant’s husband’s name. The Internal Revenue Service confirmed that each lien did not attach to the subject property, meaning that there was no obstacle to the commitment for title insurance. Accordingly, there is no question that plaintiff was entitled to a permanent loan modification under the Trial Plan.

Are you involved in a real estate dispute in Michigan? Are you seeking an efficient and effective resolution to a property litigation matter?

If you are facing a residential or commercial real estate, seek the advice of an experienced and skilled real estate litigation attorney at Aldrich Legal Services in Plymouth.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Are Juvenile Records Public or Can They be Expunged?

There is something in most people’s life they regret - if they could redo a moment, they would have done it better. Although there is no physical way to erase the past or redo past wrongs, there is a legal way to prevent some of the crimes...

FAMILY LAW 42: Motion to modify custody denied due to lack of supporting affidavits or documentation.

The lack of substantiation, again and again, could reasonably call into question plaintiff’s motives and credibility on all matters. The trial court appeared more than open to further considering a motion to modify custody if plaintiff would come forward with supporting documentary evidence, explaining why the court took the unusual step of denying the motion without prejudice.

WILLS/TRUSTS 21: Plaintiff alleged the University failed to use the funds consistent with the terms of the trust.

On April 23, 2018, plaintiff filed suit, alleging (1) breach of contract, namely the University’s failure to use the funds consistent with the terms of the Gift Agreement, and seeking damages or specific performance; (2) breach of fiduciary duty, on account of the University’s failure, as trustee of the charitable trust established by Professor’s gift, to comply with the terms and conditions of the resulting charitable trust; (3) violation of the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act, MCL 451.921 et seq.; and (4) the need for injunctive relief prohibiting the dissipation of funds during the pendency of the case.

What is Collaborative Divorce Family Law?

Coming to the end of a happy time is a challenge no one wants to deal with in life. The end of a marriage through a divorce can especially be a tough, emotional, and complicated period. Lawyers and judges deciding your future, remembering important...

FAMILY LAW 41: To minimize disruptive changes in children’s custody, moving party must establish cause or a change of circumstance.

To minimize unwarranted and disruptive changes in children’s custody, a trial court may only modify children’s custody if the moving party first establishes a proper cause or a change of circumstances. The purpose of this framework is to erect a barrier against removal of a child from an established custodial environment and to minimize unwarranted and disruptive changes of custody orders.

DIVORCE 35: Proceeds received by one spouse in a personal injury lawsuit are generally considered separate property.

Proceeds received by one spouse in a personal injury lawsuit meant to compensate for pain and suffering, as opposed to lost wages, are generally considered separate property. Moreover, separate assets may lose their character as separate property and transform into marital property if they are commingled with marital assets and treated by the parties as marital property.

4 Common Real Estate Disputes to Watch Out For

Creating a mutually beneficial real estate deal usually goes through smoothly with both sides presenting their interests then negotiating toward a middle ground they can both agree to uphold. Unfortunately, not all deals go through without an issue....

Is My Conviction Eligible for Expungement?

At one point or another, we have all made mistakes. For some people, those mistakes involved breaking the law. Convictions have a large impact on someone’s life. Beyond the sentencing ranging from community service to fines, to jail or prison...

REAL ESTATE 44: Rule of acquiescence in boundary disputes.

The doctrine of acquiescence provides that, where adjoining property owners acquiesce to a boundary line for a period of at least fifteen years, that line becomes the actual boundary line. The underlying reason for the rule of acquiescence is the promotion of peaceful resolution of boundary disputes.

FAMILY LAW 37: Referee recommended against changing legal custody or parenting time.

Plaintiff requested sole legal custody, arguing that she and defendant had difficulty co-parenting and that defendant would not agree to medical treatment for the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD, need for orthodontic work, and need for vision testing and glasses. Plaintiff also requested an alternating weekly or biweekly schedule during the summer, which would increase her overall parenting time.

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000