The Huntington National Bank v. Centre Court Properties, LLC et al
Filing
40
ORDER Granting In Part Plaintiff's 31 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
THE HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK,
successor to Fidelity Bank,
Plaintiff,
CASE NUMBER: 12-13474
HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS
v.
CENTRE COURT PROPERTIES, LLC,
ROBERT W. KIRK, ROBERT S. HUTH
and KIRK & HUTH, P.C., jointly and severally,
Defendants.
/
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. # 31)
I.
INTRODUCTION
Huntington National Bank (“Plaintiff”), as successor to Fidelity Bank, brought an
action against Centre Court Properties, LLC (“Centre Court”), Robert Kirk, Robert Huth,
and Kirk & Huth, P.C. (collectively, “Defendants”) after Centre Court defaulted on its
mortgage loan. At the time of the loan, Kirk, Huth and Kirk & Huth, P.C. (the
“Guarantors”) each executed an absolute and unconditional guaranty of repayment (the
“Guaranties”), personally guaranteeing the payment of Centre Court’s debt. Plaintiff
alleges three claims of relief: Breach of the Note (Count I); Breach of the Guaranties
(Count II); and Judicial Foreclosure (Count III).
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on
Counts I and II. On December 16, 2013, the Court held a telephone conference
regarding this matter. Attending were Patrick Lannen for the Plaintiff and Raechel
Badalamenti and Robert Huth for Defendants.
Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART. The Court finds there is no genuine
issue of material fact as to liability. Accordingly, Centre Court is liable on Count I,
Breach of the Note, and the Guarantors are liable on Count II, Breach of the Guaranties.
Because a genuine issue of material fact exists as to the amount owed by Defendants,
the Court denies the entry of a money judgment.
In response to discussion during the telephone conference, Plaintiff’s claim for
Judicial Foreclosure (Count III) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If Plaintiff is
unable to collect from Defendants after entry of a money judgment, it may pursue
foreclosure proceedings.
II.
BACKGROUND
On June 29, 2007, Centre Court obtained a $1,466,250.00 loan from Fidelity
Bank secured by real property. The monthly installments were $12,141.02 until June
29, 2012, at which time the remaining balance was due. The mortgage required Centre
Court to pay all taxes assessed against the property.
Contemporaneous with the execution of the note and mortgage, Guarantors
separately executed guaranties of repayment. Guarantors agreed to be personally
liable for “the payment and performance of each and every debt, liability and obligation
of every type and description which Centre Court may now or at any time hereafter
owe.” Guaranties at 1. The Guarantors also agreed that Huntington was not required
to first foreclose on the property or attempt to recover from Centre Court before
enforcing the Guaranties. Id. at 2 (“Lender shall not be required first to resort for
payment of the Indebtedness to Borrower or other persons or their properties, or first to
2
enforce, realize upon or exhaust any collateral security for Indebtedness, before
enforcing this guaranty.”).
On March 30, 2012, Plaintiff entered into a Purchase and Assumption
Agreement, under which it assumed all of Fidelity Bank’s rights and obligations in and to
Centre Bank’s note and mortgage and the Guaranties.
Centre Court defaulted on the loan by failing to repay the outstanding balance on
June 29, 2012. It also defaulted by failing to pay property taxes from 2009 to 2012.
Centre Court admits these defaults.
On August 8, 2012, Plaintiff filed this action. On December 17, 2012, to avoid tax
foreclosure on the property, Plaintiff paid $102,281.04 to the Macomb County Treasurer
for past due taxes from the 2009 and 2010 taxable years.
Plaintiff filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on July 15, 2013. Plaintiff says
that, as of July 15, 2013, Defendants are jointly and severally liable for Centre Court’s
defaults in the amount of $1,605,008.12 – which continues to grow. Plaintiff’s figure
represents unpaid principal of $1,363,540.59; unpaid interest of $195,994.09; late
charges equaling $24,160.59; and costs and attorneys’ fees of $21,312.85.
Defendants dispute the amount owed. They say they made monthly payments of
$12,141.02 from the inception of the loan until March 2012, and that owing
$1,363,540.59 in principal on a $1,466,250.00 loan after five years does not add up.
Defendants argue Plaintiff produced insufficient documentation to support the amount it
claims due. In addition, Defendants attach “an unverified Fidelity Bank - Loan History
Record” to their Response and say there is an unwarranted rise in the interest rate and
the late charges and attorney fees are unsupported. Defendants ask for an evidentiary
3
hearing regarding the issue of damages/amount of outstanding debt.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court will grant summary judgment “if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
250-57 (1986). A fact is material for purposes of summary judgment if proof of that fact
would have the effect of establishing or refuting an essential element of the cause of
action or a defense advanced by the parties. Kendall v. Hoover Co., 751 F.2d 171, 174
(6th Cir. 1984).
Once a movant demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact,
the opposing party must make an affirmative showing with proper evidence to defeat the
motion. Alexander v. Caresource, 576 F.3d 551, 558 (6th Cir. 2009). On a motion for
summary judgment, the facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S.
574, 587 (1986).
III.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on its Breach of the Note and Breach of
the Guaranties claims. During the telephone conference, Defendants conceded liability
except to argue the Guaranties required Plaintiff to foreclose on the collateral before
attempting to collect under the Guaranties.
The record establishes that Centre Court defaulted on the terms of the mortgage
loan and accompanying promissory note, and Plaintiff is successor to Fidelity Bank.
Thus, Centre Court is liable under Count I, Breach of the Note.
4
In addition, the Guarantors are liable to Plaintiff for the full amount Centre Court
owes under the mortgage loan and note. Under Michigan law, a creditor may proceed
against a guarantor of “payment” prior to filing any claim against the borrower or
foreclosing on collateral. See Comerica Bank v. Cohen, 291 Mich. App. 40, 48-49, 51
(2010); 31800 Wick Road Holdings, LLC v. Future Lodging-Airport, 848 F.Supp.2d 757,
764-65 (E.D. Mich. 2012)(citing Krekel v. Thomasma, 255 Mich. 283, 288-89, 238 N.W.
255 (1931). Plaintiff argues that the terms and conditions of the Guaranties are similar
to those in Cohen and Wick Road. The Court agrees. The Guaranties clearly and
unambiguously provide that Plaintiff may proceed against the Guarantors before trying
to recover from Centre Court or foreclosing. See id. Accordingly, the Guarantors are
liable under Count II, Breach of the Guaranties.
The Court grants Plaintiff summary judgment on Counts I and II as to liability.
Because a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the interest rate, the
late charges and the outstanding debt in general, the Court cannot enter a money
judgment for the amount Defendants owe Plaintiff. If the parties cannot otherwise agree
on the amount of damages, the Court will hold a hearing to determine them.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART. Centre Court is liable for Count I,
Breach of the Note, and the Guarantors are liable for Count II, Breach of the
Guaranties. The Court denies the entry of a money judgment.
Plaintiff’s Judicial Foreclosure claim (Count III) is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. If Plaintiff is unable to collect from Defendants after entry of a money
5
judgment, it may pursue foreclosure proceedings.
The parties have until January 6, 2014 to let the Court know if they have agreed
on the amount of damages. Otherwise, the Court will hold a hearing to determine them.
The trial scheduled for January 14, 2014 is CANCELLED.
IT IS ORDERED.
S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: December 18, 2013
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of
record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on
December 18, 2013.
S/Linda Vertriest
Deputy Clerk
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?