Garcia v. Federal National Mortgage Association

782 F.3d 736 (2015)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Garcia v. Federal National Mortgage Association

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
782 F.3d 736 (2015)

Facts

A Michigan statute permitted foreclosure by advertisement. The statute required the foreclosing party to provide a borrower who defaulted with written notice of the default, the amount owed, and the number of days in the statutory redemption period following a foreclosure sale. The foreclosing party was also required to inform the borrower that he or she had 30 days to modify the loan. If the loan was not modified, the statute required the foreclosing party to publish notice of the date of the foreclosure and sheriff’s sale for four consecutive weeks and to post a copy of the notice on the borrower’s property. The statute allowed the borrower to redeem the property within six months after the sheriff’s sale. During this six-month period, a borrower who believed that fraud or irregularity had occurred was entitled to sue to stay the foreclosure and set aside the sheriff’s sale. In 2007, homeowners Angel Garcia (plaintiff) and Estela Garcia (plaintiffs) defaulted on their mortgage. Bank of America (defendant), the mortgage servicer, offered the Garcias a permanent loan modification, but the Garcias failed to execute the required modification agreement. Bank of America subsequently informed the Garcias that it was proceeding with nonjudicial foreclosure. After performing all of the requirements of the foreclosure-by-advertisement statute, Bank of America purchased the Garcias’ property at the sheriff’s sale and quitclaimed it to the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) (defendant). After the six-month redemption period expired, Fannie Mae began proceedings to evict the Garcias. The Garcias sued Fannie Mae, Bank of America, and others, arguing among other things that the foreclosure had violated their due- process rights. The district court dismissed the Garcias’ claim, and the Garcias appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Merritt, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 745,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 745,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 745,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership