Arthur Talbot, et al. v. U.S. Bank National Association

In Conlin v. Mortgage Elec. Reg. Sys., 714 F.3d 355 (6th Cir. 2013) the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals provided that a court can only entertain the setting aside of a foreclosure sale after expiration of the redemption period where a mortgagor (here, Petitioners) makes ‘‘a clear showing of fraud, or irregularity,” that such fraudulent conduct ‘‘must relate to the foreclosure procedure itself,’’ and that a mortgagor must also show that they were prejudiced by a foreclosing party’s failure to comply with the Michigan foreclosure by advertisement statute and that, to demonstrate such prejudice, the mortgagor must show that they would have been in a better position to preserve their interest in the property absent defendant’s noncompliance with the statute. While the Sixth Circuit has set a high bar to setting aside a post-redemptionperiod foreclosure, it, nevertheless, provides a means by which mortgagors might find relief from a foreclosure that was accomplished by fraudulent means. Petitioners assert that they sufficiently pled facts to satisfy the high bar set by the Sixth Circuit in Conlin and have shown in their pleadings that they were induced to give up possession of their home in exchange for a promise by U.S. Bank National Association (here, Respondent) that it would negotiate with Petitioners for repurchase of their home, but have not been given the opportunity. Therefore, the questions presented in this case are: 1. Whether the Sixth Circuit has negated the relief it otherwise affords in Conlin to homeowners whose homes have been foreclosed through fraudulent means.