Reserve at Heritage Village Assn v. Warren Financial Acquisition

Michigan Supreme Court

Reserve at Heritage Village Assn v. Warren Financial Acquisition

DecidedJune 19, 2015

Docket149851

StatusPublished

This text of Reserve at Heritage Village Assn v. Warren Financial Acquisition (Reserve at Heritage Village Assn v. Warren Financial Acquisition) 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

Reserve at Heritage Village Assn v. Warren Financial Acquisition, (Mich. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

June 19, 2015 Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

149851(72)(73) Stephen J. Markman Mary Beth Kelly Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack THE RESERVE AT HERITAGE David F. Viviano VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, Richard H. Bernstein, Plaintiff-Appellant, Justices

v SC: 149851 COA: 317830 Macomb CC: 2012-000133-CH WARREN FINANCIAL ACQUISITION, LLC, HERITAGE VILLAGE SINGLE FAMILY, INC., HERITAGE VILLAGE MASTER COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, GRAND/SAKWA PROPERTIES, LLC, GRAND/SAKWA OF WARREN, LLC, GARY SAKWA, NICK DONOFRIO, WHITEHALL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., CHRISTINE METIVA, STANLEY L. SCOTT, DAVID A. GANS, WINNICK HERITAGE VILLAGE, LLC, and RESERVE MORTGAGE HOLDING, LLC, Defendants-Appellees, and RESERVE MORTGAGE HOLDING, LLC, Intervening Plaintiff, v THE RESERVE AT HERITAGE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, Intervening Defendant. ______________________________________/

On order of the Court, to the extent that plaintiff-appellant’s motion for reconsideration is directed at Justice Bernstein’s decision to recuse himself from participating in this Court’s April 28, 2015 order, it is considered and it is DENIED because the “familial relationship” referenced in Justice Bernstein’s recusal statement was based on his brother-in-law’s business association with several defendants-appellees. 2

The motion for reconsideration, as it pertains to the Court’s denial of the application for leave to appeal, is also DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously. The motion to strike filed by defendants-appellees is DENIED as moot.

BERNSTEIN, J., participating only in the denial of the motion for reconsideration to the extent it pertains to his recusal.

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 19, 2015 d0616 Clerk

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

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

June 19, 2015 Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

149851(72)(73) Stephen J. Markman Mary Beth Kelly Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack THE RESERVE AT HERITAGE David F. Viviano VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, Richard H. Bernstein, Plaintiff-Appellant, Justices

v SC: 149851 COA: 317830 Macomb CC: 2012-000133-CH WARREN FINANCIAL ACQUISITION, LLC, HERITAGE VILLAGE SINGLE FAMILY, INC., HERITAGE VILLAGE MASTER COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, GRAND/SAKWA PROPERTIES, LLC, GRAND/SAKWA OF WARREN, LLC, GARY SAKWA, NICK DONOFRIO, WHITEHALL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., CHRISTINE METIVA, STANLEY L. SCOTT, DAVID A. GANS, WINNICK HERITAGE VILLAGE, LLC, and RESERVE MORTGAGE HOLDING, LLC, Defendants-Appellees, and RESERVE MORTGAGE HOLDING, LLC, Intervening Plaintiff, v THE RESERVE AT HERITAGE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, Intervening Defendant. ______________________________________/

On order of the Court, to the extent that plaintiff-appellant’s motion for reconsideration is directed at Justice Bernstein’s decision to recuse himself from participating in this Court’s April 28, 2015 order, it is considered and it is DENIED because the “familial relationship” referenced in Justice Bernstein’s recusal statement was based on his brother-in-law’s business association with several defendants-appellees. 2

The motion for reconsideration, as it pertains to the Court’s denial of the application for leave to appeal, is also DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously. The motion to strike filed by defendants-appellees is DENIED as moot.

BERNSTEIN, J., participating only in the denial of the motion for reconsideration to the extent it pertains to his recusal.

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 19, 2015 d0616 Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Reserve at Heritage Village Assn v. Warren Financial Acquisition, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reserve-at-heritage-village-assn-v-warren-financia-mich-2015.