Opinion
No. 313938
06-05-2014
TROY HENDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 2012-126238-CH
Before: RIORDAN, P.J., and DONOFRIO and FORT HOOD, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff, Troy Henderson, appeals as of right the trial court order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant, Bank of America. We affirm.
The underlying dispute in this case is plaintiff's failure to make mortgage payments on his house in Southfield, Michigan, which resulted in foreclosure proceedings. Plaintiff initiated this instant action against defendant and alleged, inter alia, quiet title and unjust enrichment based on the parties' failure to come to a loan modification agreement. The trial court ultimately granted defendant's motion for summary disposition.
On appeal, plaintiff has presented no cognizable legal claim or relevant analysis. He argues erroneously that the trial court failed to specify which subrule it was relying on when it granted defendant's motion for summary disposition. However, in its ruling the trial court stated: "[h]aving considered the arguments, the Court finds that plaintiff's claims fail factually and legally under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10)."
Further, we may "affirm a trial court's grant of summary disposition for reasons different than relied on by the trial court." Jackson Co Hog Producers v Consumers Power Co, 234 Mich App 72, 86; 592 NW2d 112 (1999). A trial court also may dispense with oral argument, MCR 2.119(E)(3).
In support of his position, plaintiff cites to cases about setting aside default judgments and procedural dismissals, which are not relevant for this appeal. Lastly, he cites to the abuse of discretion standard, which has no bearing in this matter, as our review is de novo. See MEEMIC Ins Co v DTE Energy Co, 292 Mich App 278, 280; 807 NW2d 407 (2011).
We find no error requiring reversal. Affirmed.
Michael J. Riordan
Pat M. Donofrio
Karen M. Fort Hood