-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF THE GSAA HOME EQUITY TRUST, ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-10, BY ITS SERVICER NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 1, 2015

v No. 321681 Macomb Circuit Court LARETHA GORDON-WI LLIAMS and CARL WILLIAMS, LC No. 2013-000481-CH

Defendants-Appellants.

and

KEY BANK USA, N.A., MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TR EASURY, and UNITED STATE OF AMERICA,

Defendants.

Before: K. F. K ELLY , P.J., and C AVANAGH and S AAD , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

. In this foreclosure action, defendants Laretha Gordon-Williams and Carl Williams 1 appeal the trial court’s denial of their motion to: (1) adjourn the hearing on plaintiff Deutsche

1 Key Bank, the Michigan Department of Treasury, and the United States of America are not parties to this appeal.-2- Bank National Trust’s (“Deutsche Bank”) motion for summary disp osition; and (2) set aside the order granting summary dis position to Deutsche Bank. 2 For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In 2005, defendants obtained a $275,400 mortgage on their Macom b residence from lender Ameriquest Mortgage. 3 Ameriquest subsequently assigned and transferred its rights, title, and interest in the property to Deutsche Bank, which acts as th e trustee for the certificate-holders of the GSAA Home Equity Trust. Defendants stopped making payme nts on their mortgage in June 2011, and defaulted soon thereaf ter. They are still indeb ted for $269,904.41 in principal.

Deutsche Bank filed an action for judicial foreclosure in the M acomb Circuit Court in January 2013. The court held status conferences throughout the year and, because of the uncomplicated nature of the action, repeatedly encouraged the p arties to either settle or file a motion for summary disposition. Defendants were generally unre sponsive during this time period, and did not answer Deutsche Bank’s requests for admissi on, which it served on defendants in late 2013 in prepar ation for its motion for summa ry disposition.

In February 2014, Deutsche Bank filed a motion for summary disp osition, and noted that defendants had: (1) never asserted a valid defense to foreclosu re; and (2) failed to respond to its requests for admission. The court scheduled a hearing on the m otion for March 31, 2014. In the interim, defendants did not res pond to Deutsche Bank’s motion.

At the March 31 hearing, defenda nts—who did not raise any subst antive objections to Deutsche Bank’s motion for summary disposition—demanded that th e court adjourn the hearing because the foreclosure proceedi ngs were “unfair,” and they bel ieved they were being considered for loan modification.

The court denied defendants’ re quest, and explained that it fou nd defendants’ assertions unavailing because: (1) the judicial foreclosure action had bee n pending for a year; (2) it had repeatedly, over a period of months, instructed the parties to prepare and file motions for summary disposition; and (3) defendants had been given ample ti me to respond to Deutsche

2 In actuality, the party that received summary disposition is D eutsche Bank’s servicer, Nationstar, which commits legal acts on Deutsche Bank’s behalf. Likewise, in the early stages of this litigation, Deutsche Ba nk acted through its prior servi cer, Bank of America. Because this distinction is of no import to t his dispute and needlessly conf using, we omit reference to Deutsche Bank’s servicers and refer simply to “Deutsche Bank” a s the plaintiff-actor throughout the opinion.

3 This was the second time defendants had mortgaged their home. In July 2004, defendants mortgaged the same property to Key Bank for $25,558. After def endants signed the mortgage with Ameriquest in 2005, Ameriquest and Key Bank signed a subor dination agreement, which specified that Key Bank was the s ubordinate lender to Ameriques t. The Ameriquest mortgage is the only loan at issue in this appeal.-3- Bank’s motion for summary disposition. The court then granted Deutsche Bank’s motion, and held that: (1) Deutsche Bank possessed a valid first lien on de fendants’ residence; and (2) defendants could redeem the pr operty if they paid the amount du e on the mortgage.

Thereafter, defendants sought to have the order set aside becau se it was allegedly “improper”—though defendants did not specify how or why it lack ed propriety. After it held a hearing on the matter, the trial court rejected defendants’ mot ion. It then issued its final order in the case on April 16, 2014, which entered a default judgment ag ainst Key Bank, the only remaining defendant. 4

On appeal, defendants claim, without offering any factual or le gal support for their arguments, that the trial court abused its discretion when it r efused to: (1) adjourn the March 2014 summary disposition proceedings; and (2) set aside its Mar ch 2014 order for summary disposition.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A trial court’s decision on whether to grant a motion for adjou rnment is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, as is its decision on whether to set aside a judgment. Zerillo v Dyksterhouse
, 191 Mich App 228, 230; 477 NW2d 117 (1991); Johnson v White , 261 Mich App 332, 345; 682 NW2d 505 (2004). An abuse of discretion occurs when “an unprej udiced person considering the facts upon which the decision was made would say that there was no justification or excuse for the decision.” Oakland Co Bd of Co Rd Comm’rs v JBD Rochester, LLC , 271 Mich App 113, 114; 718 NW2d 845 (2006).

III. ANALYSIS

At the outset, we note that defendants’ “arguments” in this app eal consist of conclusory statements that the trial court abused its discretion. These s tatements are not supported by any relevant legal authority or reco rd citations. Defendants’ fail ure to make a proper appeal is particularly egregious—the y do not explain what portion of the March 2014 order is erroneous or provide any analysis whatsoever. A party “may not merely annou nce his position and leave it to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims , nor may he give issues cursory treatment with little or no ci tation of supporting authority.” Peterson Novelties, Inc v City of Berkley , 259 Mich App 1, 14; 672 NW2d 351 (2003) (citations omitted). “An appellant’s failure to properly address the merits o f his assertion of error consti tutes abandonment of the issue.” Id

. Accordingly, defendants have a bandoned both of their claims on appeal, and we need not address either assertion.

In any event, were we nonetheless to overlook the fact that de fendants have failed to properly present their arguments before our Court, the record i ndicates that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to adjourn the hearing for summary disposition, or set aside its grant of summary disposition to Deutsche Bank. In conduct that mirrors their actions on

4 Again, Key Bank is not a pa rty to this appeal.-4- appeal, defendants offered no valid legal arguments in the trial court as to why Deutsche Bank should not have received summary disposition, and ultimately, t he right to foreclose the property. In fact, Deutsche Bank has given defendants ample time to repay their debt—both before the initiation of this suit, and af ter the initiation of this suit— which defendants have been unable to do.

We therefore affirm the trial c ourt’s denial of defendants’ re quests to: (1) adjourn the March 2014 motion for summary disposition; and (2) set aside th e March 2014 motion for summary disposition, and defendant s’ appeal is hereby dismissed

.
Affirmed.

/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly /s/ Mark J. Cavanagh /s/ Henry William Saad