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.