Where a third party has “not asserted any of the defenses from Livonia” and it is not “clear that any of the defenses apply, ” that party lacks standing to challenge the assignment. Connolly v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr. Co., 581 Fed.Appx. 500, 507 (6th Cir. 2014).

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). Because Yaldo allowed the redemption period following the foreclosure of her property to expire, she has no legal interest in the property that litigation might vindicate, see Connolly v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 581 F. App'x 500, 504 (6th Cir. 2014), unless she makes a clear showing of fraud or irregularity in the foreclosure procedure, see Conlin v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., 714 F.3d 355, 359-61 (6th Cir. 2013), and shows that she was prejudiced in her ability to preserve her interest in the property, see id.; Connolly, 581 F. App'x at 507-08. Yaldo's claims of irregularity in the foreclosure procedure include an allegation that Homeward could not foreclose because it was in bankruptcy.

To prevail on a claim for quiet title under Michigan law, a plaintiff must "show that he has title to the property superior to claims by others with an interest in the property." Connolly v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., No. 12-12517, 2013 WL 4084742, *20 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 13, 2013) (citing Beulah Hoagland Appleton Qualified Pers. Residence Trust v. Emmet Cty. Rd. Comm'n, 600 N.W.2d 698, 704 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999)), aff'd, 581 F. App'x 500 (6th Cir. 2014). To do so here, the Wuoris would need to state "the chain of title through which they claim ownership" of the twenty-acre parcel of land.

Because the Martinis do not revisit Count VI on appeal, we decline to address it. See Connolly v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 581 F. App'x 500, 503 n.4 (6th Cir. 2014). -------- On appeal, the Martinis only assert that the district court erred in not finding that they were prejudiced by the defendants' actions in the following ways: (1) "they were unable to preserve ownership of their property under a modified loan structure" and (2) "they may be subject to double collection," first by Chase and then by Freddie Mac. Appellants' Br. 23.

Under Michigan law, parties may "effectively void a sheriff's sale" with an expungement affidavit. Connolly v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., 581 Fed. Appx. 500, 506 (6th Cir. 2014). In fact, Plaintiff has previously used this mechanism.

For example, in Wuori v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, this court held that an affidavit under M.C.L. § 565.451a could both expunge a sheriff's sale and revive a mortgage. 2016 WL 7378407 at *4 (6th Cir. Dec. 20, 2016); see also Connolly v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., No. 12-12517, 2013 WL 4084742, *5-*6 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 13, 2013), aff'd in Connolly v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., 581 F. App'x 500, 505-06 (6th Cir. 2014). True, the cases set forth above are not from the Michigan Supreme Court, which should be the first source of state law for a federal court sitting in diversity, see Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938).

The district court correctly recognized that, in general, borrowers who are not a party or intended third party beneficiary to a mortgage assignment or pooling and service agreement lack contractual standing to challenge these instruments or agreements. See Connolly v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 581 F. App'x 500, 507 (6th Cir. 2014); Conlin v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 714 F.3d 355, 361 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Livonia Props. Holdings, LLC v. 12840-12976 Farmington Rd. Holdings, LLC, 399 F. App'x 97, 102 (6th Cir. 2010)). And courts applying Tennessee law have adopted this principle.

We review the District Court's ruling on a motion for reconsideration for an abuse of discretion. Connolly v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l. Trust Co., 581 Fed. App'x 500, 503 n.6 (6th Cir. 2014). Plaintiff "must show both that there is a palpable defect in the opinion and that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case." Indah v. U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 661 F.3d 914, 924 (6th Cir. 2011) (citing E.D.Mich.

(internal citation omitted). Notably, in Connolly v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., 581 Fed.Appx. 500, 507 (6th Cir. 2014), the Sixth Circuit held that a non-party to an assignment who failed to raise one of these three defenses lacked standing to challenge the assignment. See Id. (holding that because plaintiff had “not asserted any of the defenses from Livonia” and because it “was not clear any of [those] defenses appl[ied], ”

Plaintiffs' arguments regarding lack of possession of the Note, "robo-signing," and an improper chain of custody fail to support plausible challenges to foreclosure. See Connolly v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., 581 Fed.App'x 500, 507 (6th Cir. 2014); Donaldson v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 813 F. Supp. 2d 885, 893-96 (M.D. Tenn. 2011); Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 2014 WL 7463032 at *12 (rejecting "show me the note" defense when the promissory note contains a waiver of presentment clause). Plaintiffs' claims for quiet title and for slander of title are essentially boot-strapped to their claim for lack of standing to foreclose and are based upon their contention that Defendant Wilmington did not have the legal authority to foreclose upon the Property.