Connolly v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for Certificate Holders for Quest Trust 2006-X2, Asset Backed Certificates, Series - X2

Filing 39

Memorandum and Order Denying Plaintiff's 35 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

LYNN MARIE CONNOLLY,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 12-12517

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY AS TRUSTEE FOR CERTIFICATE
HOLDERS FOR QUEST TRUST 2006-X2,
ASSET BACKED SECURITIES, SERIES-X-2,

HON. AVERN COHN

Defendant.
____________________________________/
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 35)
I.
In 2012, plaintiff Lynn Marie Connolly filed a complaint naming Deutsche Bank
National Trust Company (Bank) as Trustee for Certificate Holders for Quest Trust 2006X2, Asset Backed Securities, Series-X2 as defendant. Defendant filed a motion to
dismiss or for summary judgment and plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary
judgment. The Court granted defendant’s motion, denied plaintiff’s motion, and
dismissed the case. (Doc. 31).
Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 35). Defendant,
at the Court’s request, filed a response. (Doc. 37). Plaintiff filed a reply. (Doc. 38). For
the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.
II.
Local Rule 7.1(h) allows a party to file a motion for reconsideration. A motion for

reconsideration which presents the same issues already ruled upon by the court, either
expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted. Czajkowski v. Tindall &
Associates, P.C., 967 F. Supp. 951, 952 (E.D. Mich. 1997). The movant shall not only
demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties have been misled, but
also show that a different disposition of the case must result from a correction of any
such defect. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3).
III.
Plaintiff has not satisfied this standard. Plaintiff’s primary basis for
reconsideration is that the Court indicated an incorrect redemption period as to the
property in question. The Court stated that plaintiff failed to redeem the property within
the six-month statutory redemption period. See Doc. 31 at p. 7. The correct
redemption period for the property was one year. However, this erroneous statement
does not warrant reconsideration. As defendant notes, it is undisputed that plaintiff
failed to redeem the property within a year of the first foreclosure, on May 12, 2010, or
within a year of the second foreclosure sale, on May 18, 2010. Thus, the use of the
term “six-months” to describe the redemption period has no effect on the Court’s finding
that plaintiff failed to redeem the property before the redemption period expired. Plaintiff
still failed to redeem. Therefore her claims are subject to the standard the Court applied
which limits a plaintiff’s ability to challenge a foreclosure proceedings once the
redemption period has expired. See Kim v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 493 Mich. 98
(2012).
Plaintiff’s other arguments essentially repeat the arguments considered and
rejected by the Court. Plaintiff challenges the effect of an affidavit rescinding the
2

foreclosure sale; however, the cases the Court relied on support the proposition that
such an affidavit is valid. See Freund v. Trott & Trott, P.C., 2011 WL 5064248 (Mich.
Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2011); Cordes v. Great Lakes Excavating & Equipt. Rental, Inc., 2012
WL 2052789 (Mich. Ct. App. June 7, 2012). Moreover, as explained in defendant’s
response, the case plaintiff cites in her motion for reconsideration, PHH Mortgage Corp,
v. O’Neal, 2013 WL 3025566 (Mich. Ct. App. June 18, 2013), is inapposite. While there
was an affidavit of recision filed in the PHH case, the court of appeals did not address th
issue and did not find that the affidavit was invalid.
Finally, plaintiff still fails to present any argument that she was prejudiced by the
foreclosure sale such that it should be set aside. See Kim, supra.
SO ORDERED.

S/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: October 16, 2013

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of
record on this date, October 16, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Sakne Chami
Case Manager, [phone]

3