UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRUCE H. YUILLE,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-11203

Plaintiff,

DISTRICT JUDGE BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

v.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE DONALD A. SCHEER

AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE

SERVICING, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

FOR SANCTIONS UNDER FED.R.CIV.P. 11

This matter is before the magistrate judge on Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions

Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. The Motion was filed on November 17, 2009. Plaintiff filed his

Response on November 25, 2009. The Motion was brought on for hearing on May 11,

2010, and taken under advisement. 

Having reviewed Defendants’ Motion, together with Plaintiff’s Response, and having

had the benefit of oral argument, I find that the Motion should be denied. 

Defendants assert that Plaintiff has violated Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b)(2) by filing claims,

defenses and other legal contentions that were not warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the

establishment of new law. Defendants further maintain that Plaintiff failed to engage in a

reasonable inquiry as to whether the Complaint was warranted under existing law. 

Plaintiff’s fundamental theory of recovery is that nominee mortgages such as those

granted to MERS as nominee for mortgage lenders constitutes an impermissible separation

of the security interest from the underlying debt. I have issued a Report and
Recommendation that judgment be entered for Defendants and against Plaintiff. There is

little doubt, however, that MERS mortgages represent a departure from traditional real

estate mortgage transactions. In my view, Defendants themselves have had difficulty in

establishing a clear record of transfer of the promissory note in this case, although they

were able to establish their possession of the original document endorsed in blank by the

Lender. While I find that Plaintiff’s case is insufficient to justify the relief sought, I do not

find that it is so flagrantly frivolous as to justify the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions.

Defendants further maintain that Plaintiff has violated Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b)(1) because

the instant action was presented for the improper purposes of harassing and causing

unnecessary delay to Defendants in foreclosing the Plaintiff’s mortgage. They outline

various actions undertaken by Plaintiff in an effort to protect himself against foreclosure. 

In particular, Defendants describe the broad array of motions filed by Plaintiff in the course

of this action. I agree with Defendants that Plaintiff’s motion practice was excessive and

largely meritless. Nonetheless, I note that Plaintiff did ultimately agree to withdraw

numerous claims and filings, and that he was reasonably cooperative with this court’s

efforts to define the essential issues in the case and to secure comprehensive dispositive

motions from both sides. While he has had legal training, Plaintiff is not an accomplished 

litigator. In the last analysis, I conclude that his prosecution of this action does not warrant

Rule 11 sanctions.

2
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions Under

Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 is DENIED.

s/Donald A. Scheer

DONALD A. SCHEER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DATED: September 22, 2010

______________________________________________________________________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify on September 22, 2010 that I electronically filed the foregoing paper

with the Clerk of the Court sending notification of such filing to all counsel registered

electronically. I hereby certify that a copy of this paper was mailed to the following nonregistered ECF participants on September 22, 2010: Bruce Yuille.

s/Michael E. Lang 

Deputy Clerk to 

Magistrate Judge Donald A. Scheer

(313) 234-5217

3