James H Diluigi v. Rbs Citizens Na

CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedJune 12, 2015
Docket150642
StatusPublished

This text of James H Diluigi v. Rbs Citizens Na (James H Diluigi v. Rbs Citizens Na) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
James H Diluigi v. Rbs Citizens Na, (Mich. 2015).

Opinion

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

June 12, 2015 Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

150642 Stephen J. Markman Mary Beth Kelly Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack David F. Viviano JAMES H. DILUIGI and KRISTA J. DILUIGI, Richard H. Bernstein, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Justices

v SC: 150642 COA: 310886 St Clair CC: 11-000815-CH RBS CITIZENS N.A., f/k/a CHARTER ONE BANK, N.A. and FREDDIE MAC, Defendants-Appellants, and CCO MORTGAGE, Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 9, 2014 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding notice. To the extent that the Court of Appeals rested its holding on the proposition that MCL 600.3204(4)(a), as amended by 2009 PA 29, requires a borrower to receive actual notice of his or her right to seek a home loan modification, see MCL 600.3205a to MCL 600.3205d [repealed by 2012 PA 521], the Court of Appeals is mistaken. As Judge Riordan’s dissenting opinion correctly observes, MCL 600.3205a(3) simply requires that notice be given “by regular first-class mail and by certified mail, return receipt requested, with delivery restricted to the borrower, both sent to the borrower’s last known address.” Because it is undisputed that defendants complied with the statutory requirements by providing plaintiffs with both forms of mailed notice, summary disposition in favor of defendants was proper. For these reasons, we REINSTATE the May 31, 2012 judgment of the St. Clair Circuit Court that granted the defendants’ motion for summary disposition.

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. June 12, 2015 t0609 Clerk

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
James H Diluigi v. Rbs Citizens Na, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-h-diluigi-v-rbs-citizens-na-mich-2015.