Opinion
Docket No. 150642. COA No. 310886.
06-12-2015
James H. DILUIGI and Krista J. Diluigi, Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. RBS CITIZENS N.A., f/k/a Charter One Bank, N.A. and Freddie Mac, Defendants–Appellants, and CCO Mortgage, Defendant.
Order
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 9, 2014 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding notice. To the extent that the Court of Appeals rested its holding on the proposition that MCL 600.3204(4)(a), as amended by 2009 PA 29, requires a borrower to receive actual notice of his or her right to seek a home loan modification, see MCL 600.3205a to MCL 600.3205d [repealed by 2012 PA 521], the Court of Appeals is mistaken. As Judge Riordan's dissenting opinion correctly observes, MCL 600.3205a(3) simply requires that notice be given “by regular first-class mail and by certified mail, return receipt requested, with delivery restricted to the borrower, both sent to the borrower's last known address.” Because it is undisputed that defendants complied with the statutory requirements by providing plaintiffs with both forms of mailed notice, summary disposition in favor of defendants was proper. For these reasons, we REINSTATE the May 31, 2012 judgment of the St. Clair Circuit Court that granted the defendants' motion for summary disposition.