Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

DANIEL WALLACE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC , Defendant-Appellee.

UNPUBLISHED September 29, 2011

No. 299984 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 2009-029290-CH

Before: SERVITTO, P.J., and MARKEY and K. F. KELLY, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court order granting summary disposition in defendant's favor. We affirm. Plaintiff owned a condominium in Wayne County and granted a mortgage on the premises to First Federal of Michigan in 2001. On October 30, 2009, defendant commenced foreclosure proceedings on plaintiff's condominium pursuant to the Foreclosure of Mortgages by Advertisement Act, MCL 600.3201 et seq. Plaintiff initiated an action against defendant on December 1, 2009, seeking to enjoin the foreclosure based upon defendant's alleged noncompliance with applicable statutory foreclosure provisions. Plaintiff also asserted in his complaint that defendant violated the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, MCL 445.901 et seq. Defendant moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10) asserting, among other things, that there was no question of material fact that it complied with all statutory provisions necessary to move forward with the foreclosure, and that the Consumer Protection Act was inapplicable as a matter of law. The trial court agreed, and, after reviewing arguments raised by plaintiff concerning the mortgage documents, granted summary disposition in defendant's favor. This appeal followed. We review a trial court's decision to grant or deny summary disposition de novo. Veenstra v Washtenaw Country Club, 466 Mich 155, 159; 645 NW2d 643 (2002). A trial court may properly grant summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) where the opposing party has failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Morris & Doherty, PC v Lockwood, 259 Mich App 38, 42; 672 NW2d 884 (2003). Motions brought pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) test the legal sufficiency of a claim based solely upon the pleadings, and when deciding such a motion, courts must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and construe them in the

-1-

light most favorable to the non-moving parties. Adair v State of Michigan, 470 Mich 105, 119; 680 NW2d 386 (2004). A motion brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual sufficiency of the plaintiff's complaint. Robinson v Ford Motor Co, 277 Mich App 146, 150; 744 NW2d 363 (2007). When reviewing a motion under subrule (C)(10), this Court considers the pleadings, admissions, affidavits, and other relevant record evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party to determine whether any genuine issue of material fact exists warranting a trial. Walsh v Taylor, 263 Mich App 618, 621; 689 NW2d 506 (2004). Summary disposition is appropriate if there is no genuine issue of any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Robinson, 277 Mich App at 150-151. "Questions involving the proper interpretation of a contract or the legal effect of a contractual clause are also reviewed de novo." McDonald v Farm Bureau Ins Co, 480 Mich 191, 197; 747 NW2d 811 (2008). On appeal, plaintiff first contends that defendant should have been enjoined from proceeding with foreclosure by advertisement because the subject mortgage does not contain a power of sale provision. We disagree. The goal of contract interpretation is to read the document as a whole and to apply the plain language used in order to honor the intent of the parties. Dobbelaere v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 275 Mich App 527, 529; 740 NW2d 503 (2007). A written contract must be interpreted according to its plain and ordinary meaning. Woodington v Shokoohi, 288 Mich App 352, 373

Download DANIEL WALLACE V CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC.pdf

Michigan Law