Patrick v. Shaw
This text of 743 N.W.2d 897 (Patrick v. Shaw) 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.
Opinion
Philip J. PATRICK and Marie T. Patrick, Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees,
v.
Randall SHAW and Hillary Shaw, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, and
Pines Investment Corporation, Pines Mortgage Corporation, and Lee Pines, Defendants, and
Borrowers Network, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.
Supreme Court of Michigan.
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 10, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we AFFIRM the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act ("AMPTA)," 12 U.S.C. 3803(c), does not preempt MCL 438.31c(2), but we disagree with that part of the opinion of the Court of Appeals that ruled that AMPTA was inapplicable because the loan here at issue was an extension, rather than an origination. Rather, AMPTA is inapplicable to this case because the loan here at issue was not an "alternative mortgage transaction" as defined by AMPTA in 12 U.S.C. 3802.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
743 N.W.2d 897, 480 Mich. 1050, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patrick-v-shaw-mich-2008.