The Huntington National Bank v. Centre Court Properties, LLC et al

Filing 44

ORDER Denying 43 Motion for Reconsideration. 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 DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DOC. # 43)
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s
December 18, 2013, Order Granting in Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Local Rule 7.1(h)(3) provides the Court's standard of review:
Generally, and without restricting the court's discretion, the
court will not grant motions for ... reconsideration that merely
present the same issues ruled upon by the court, either
expressly or by reasonable implication. The movant must
not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court
and the parties and other persons entitled to be heard on the
motion have been misled but also show that correcting the
defect will result in a different disposition of the case.
E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). Palpable defects are those which are "obvious, clear,
unmistakable, manifest or plain." Mich. Dep't of Treasury v. Michalec, 181 F. Supp. 2d
731, 734 (E.D. Mich. 2002). "It is an exception to the norm for the Court to grant a
motion for reconsideration." Maiberger v. City of Livonia, 724 F. Supp. 2d 759, 780
(E.D. Mich. 2010). "[A]bsent a significant error that changes the outcome of a ruling on

a motion, the Court will not provide a party with an opportunity to relitigate issues
already decided." Id.
Defendants argue Mich. Comp. Laws 600.3160 requires Plaintiff to first foreclose
on the collateral before proceeding against the guarantors. Defendants briefed this
argument in their response to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; it is unavailing.
The guarantor Defendants each executed a Guaranty of Payment. The terms of
each Guaranty unambiguously allows Plaintiff to collect from the guarantors before
foreclosing: “Lender shall not be required first to resort for payment of the Indebtedness
to Borrower or other persons or their properties, or first to enforce, realize upon or
exhaust any collateral security for Indebtedness, before enforcing this guaranty.” See
Guaranties at p. 2. Pursuant to the plain terms of the Guaranties, Plaintiff is not
required to foreclose on the collateral before proceeding against the guarantors. 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).
Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. There is no palpable defect
in this Court’s Order (Doc. # 40) Granting in Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment.
IT IS ORDERED.

s/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: December 27, 2013
2

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 27, 2013.
s/Linda Vertriest
Deputy Clerk

3