Opinion ID: 2983000
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sheriff’s Sales

Text: Plaintiffs first seek to set aside their respective sheriff’s sales, citing MICH. COMP. LAWS § 600.5801(1) for the proposition that they have five years from the date of sale to do so. Plaintiffs are mistaken. MICH. COMP. LAWS § 600.5801(1) governs a “defendant[’s]” claim of title “by or through some deed made upon sale of the premises . . . by a sheriff upon a mortgage foreclosure sale . . . .” Plaintiffs do not claim title by way of the sheriff’s sale, and § 600.5801(1) is thus inapplicable. Rather, plaintiffs must meet the Kim standard. As discussed infra, defendant banks’ supposed “overbidding” at the sheriff’s sales does not constitute fraud or irregularity. Nor was there fraud or irregularity in their alleged failure to follow HUD bidding guidelines, as these guidelines postdate the sheriff’s sales and apply only to foreclosure sales “scheduled on or after February 1, 2015.” U.S. DEP’T OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, MORTGAGEE LETTER 2014-24, INCREASING USE OF FHA’S CLAIMS WITHOUT CONVEYANCE OF TITLE PROCEDURES, at 1 (2014). Plaintiffs also failed to plead sufficient facts to support their claim that defendant banks violated then-effective HUD servicing guidelines, asserting only “a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Alshaibani v. Litton Loan Serv., LP, 528 F. App’x 462, 465 (6th Cir. 2013). Nor can plaintiffs show prejudice, as they “admitted default, received notice of default, failed to show they had the funds to Case No. 14-2147 5 Letvin, et al. v. Lew, et al. outbid the highest bidder at the sale, let alone pay the entire unpaid balance owing on the loan, and showed no attempt to redeem the property . . . .” Colyer v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., No. 13-10425, 2014 WL 1048009, at  (E.D. Mich. March 18, 2014) (collecting cases). Dismissal for failure to state a claim was appropriate.