Where a judge ruled in favor of the defendants in a dispute arising from the foreclosure of real property, that judgment should be upheld despite the plaintiffs’ argument that the judge erroneously held that they failed to establish disparate treatment claims under the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and that the judge erroneously relied on the affidavit of a bank employee as substantive evidence at trial.
“In this dispute arising from the foreclosure of real property, plaintiffs, Tillman Industrial Properties, LLC, and Roosevelt Tillman, appeal by right the judgment in favor of defendants, Mercantile Bank Mortgage Company, LLC and Mercantile Bank Corporation (collectively Mercantile Bank), following a bench trial. On appeal, plaintiffs argue that the trial court erroneously held that they failed to establish disparate treatment claims under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 USC 3601 et seq ., and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 USC 1691 et seq . They also argue that the trial court erroneously relied on the affidavit of Mercantile Bank employee Traci Courter as substantive evidence at trial. Because we conclude that plaintiffs have not identified any error in the trial court’s findings of fact or conclusions of law, we affirm.
“We first address plaintiffs’ argument that the trial court erred by relying on Courter’s affidavit as substantive evidence at trial. Plaintiffs concede that they offered the affidavit at trial and that it was admitted but nevertheless argue that the trial court erred by relying on it as substantive evidence. We disagree.
“Courter’s affidavit was admissible as nonhearsay under MRE 801(d)(2)(B) and (C).
“Even if the trial court had erred, such error would not warrant relief. The trial court made it clear in its verdict that it was using Courter’s affidavit as a convenient summary of the parties’ relationship. It did not use the affidavit to resolve any material factual dispute. Moreover, plaintiffs have not identified any prejudice that they suffered from the trial court’s use of the affidavit. Thus, they have failed to establish plain error affecting their substantial rights.
“Plaintiffs also argue that the trial court misapplied the law governing claims of disparate treatment in violation of the FHA and ECOA. In doing so, they argue that they presented sufficient evidence to establish their disparate treatment claims under the FHA and ECOA, and the trial court erred when it determined otherwise. Again, we disagree.
“On appeal, plaintiffs do not address the trial court’s finding that Mercantile Bank offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its decision to proceed with foreclosure and its refusal to accommodate Tillman and his entities any further. They also do not address the trial court’s finding that the nondiscriminatory reason was not a pretext for discrimination.
“In its opinion and order denying summary disposition on Count 1 of the complaint, the trial court stated that it was denying summary disposition because the parties had developed a record that demonstrated that there were questions of fact as to whether Mercantile Bank engaged in disparate treatment. The trial court specifically stated that Mercantile Bank had identified evidence that it had a legitimate reason for acting as it did, and that plaintiffs presented evidence that those reasons were pretextual. The trial court concluded that the dispute over the evidence had to be resolved at trial. Consequently, the dispute over a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Mercantile Bank’s actions and whether that reason was pretextual was left for trial, and the trial court resolved it in favor of Mercantile Bank based on the evidence presented.
“Plaintiffs have not challenged the trial court’s finding regarding pretext, nor have they identified any basis for ignoring their failure to do so. Therefore, even if we were to conclude that the trial court erred when it determined that they failed to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment, plaintiffs would not be entitled to relief. Consequently, we decline to consider their remaining claims of error.”
Tillman Indus. Prop. LLC v. Mercantile Bank Mortgage Co. LLC; MiLW 08-107994, 8 pages; Michigan Court of Appeals unpublished per curiam; Feeney, J., Rick, J., N. P. Hood, J.; on appeal from Kent Circuit Court; Tyrone Bynum for appellant; Matthew T. Nelson for appellee.
Click here to read the opinion
Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.
Most Popular
Comments / 0