Anda di halaman 1dari 10

STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF WAYNE GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania corporation, and

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff, v. ALI BEYDOUN, AMAL BEYDOUN, and GENERAL BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, a limited liability company

SWISTAK & LEVINE Lawrence P. Swistak (P24892) Attorneys for Plaintiff 30445 Northwestern Hwy, Suite 140 Farmington Hills, MI 48334 (248) 851-8000 (248) 851-4620 (Fax)

There is no other pending or resolved civil action arising out of the transaction or occurrence alleged in this Complaint. COMPLAINT Now come Plaintiff, GMAC Mortgage Corporation, by and through its attorneys, Swistak & Levine, P.C., and for its Complaint, represent as follows: PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 1. Plaintiff, GMAC Mortgage Corporation (GMAC), is a Pennsylvania

corporation duly authorized to conduct business in the State of Michigan, and conducts business in Wayne County, Michigan.

2.

Plaintiff, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS), is

organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, is authorized to transact business in the State of Michigan, and conducts business in Wayne County, Michigan. 3. Upon information and belief, Defendants, Ali Beydoun and Amal

Beydoun, are husband and wife, (jointly, the Beydouns) are residents of the City of Dearborn, County of Wayne, State of Michigan. 4. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Noble General Business

Services, LLC (Noble), is a Michigan limited liability company conducting business in Wayne County, Michigan and maintaining a principal office at ______________ 6355 Oakman Blvd, Dearborn, MI 48126. Ali Beydoun is President of Noble. 5. Defendant, Business Loan Center (Business), is a Delaware

Corporation, maintains an office and place of business at 645 Madison Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, New York, 10022, and conducts business in Wayne County, Michigan. 6. This action is brought with respect to a certain parcel of property located

in the City of Dearborn, County of Wayne, State of Michigan, commonly known as, 6355 Oakman Blvd (the Oakman Property) and more particularly described as: LOT 473 INCLUDING OF THE VACATED ALLEY AT THE REAR THEREOF; ROBERT OAKMANS OAKMAN BLVD. AND MILLER AVENUE SUBDIVISION, OF PART OF THE E. OF W. OF SECTION 8, T. 2 S. , R. 11 E., CITY OF SPRINGWELLS (NOW CITY OF DEARBORN) WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN, AS RECORDED IN LIBER 54, OF PLATS, PAGE 44 OF WAYNE COUNTY RECORDS. TAX I.D. NO: 7. interest. 82-10-083-06-028

The amount in controversy exceeds $25,000 exclusive of costs and

8.

This Court has jurisdiction over this cause of action pursuant to MCL

600.601, 600.605 and 600.2932 and MCR 2.605. 9. 10. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to MCL 600.1605. After diligent inquiry, Plaintiff is unaware of any other parties vested with

an interest in the Oakman Property. COUNT I QUIET TITLE 11. Plaintiff incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 10 of this

Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 12. On March 22, 1995, the Oakman Property was conveyed by Ahmad Farej

and Fadia Farej to Ali Beydoun for the sum of $110,000.00. The conveyance was effected by a warranty deed dated March 22, 1995, and recorded on April 17, 1995 in Wayne County Register of Deeds Liber 27987, Page 466, Wayne County Records. 13. On May 3, 2002, Noble borrowed the sum of $1,400,000.00 from

Business Loan Center, Inc, (the BLC Note) and secured repayment thereof by granting a first priority mortgage of that date encumbering two separate parcels of real property (the BLC Mortgage). The BLC Mortgage encumbered the Oakman Property and real property commonly known as 9525 Telegraph, ____________, Michigan. The BLC Mortgage was recorded on October 22, 2002, in Liber 37081, Page 1253, Wayne County Records. 14. On September 16, 2002, Defendant, Ali Beydoun, borrowed the sum of

$247,500.00 from Aegis Mortgage Corporation (Aegis) and evidenced said loan by a written promissory note (the GMAC Note) and secured repayment thereof by granting a first priority mortgagee interest in the Oakman Property pursuant to a written mortgage

of that date (the GMAC Mortgage). On October 23, 2002, the GMAC Mortgage was recorded in Liber 37091, Page 1020, Wayne County Records, one day after the BCL Mortgage was recorded.. 15. On _____________, Aegis assigned the GMAC Note and GMAC Mortgage to GMAC. The assignment was recorded on _____________, in Liber _______, Page ________, Wayne County Records. 16. Upon the closing of the GMAC Note and GMAC Mortgage, the loan

proceeds were utilized, in full, to pay-off and discharge the _____________________, a first priority encumbrance upon the Property. 17. On the date the GMAC Mortgage was executed by the Beydouns, GMAC

had no knowledge regarding the existence of the BCL Mortgage, its recordation occurring the day before the closing of the GMAC Mortgage. 18. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Business had

actual knowledge of the existence of the GMAC LoanSelect Investors Mortgage No. 2, its recordation occurring prior to the closing of the National City Mortgage and, as a result, National City and Hromek intended the National City Mortgage to be a second mortgage, junior and subordinate to the Select Investors Mortgage No. 2. 26. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, National City

had actual knowledge of the existence of the Select Investors Loan No. 3 and Hromeks intent to convey a first priority mortgage to Select Investors pursuant to the Select Investors Mortgage No. 3 by virtue of disclosures made by Hromek to National City. National Citys actual knowledge of the existence of Select Investors Mortgage No. 3,

negates any priority of its mortgagee interest over the Select Investors Mortgage No. 3 afforded by virtue of its prior recordation. 27. Hromek has defaulted under the terms of the Select Investors Note No. 3

and the Select Investors Mortgage No. 3, including, but not limited to, their failure to render timely repayment of the debt evidenced by same. 28. In addition, the doctrine of equitable subrogation, as it is applied in

circumstances of a refinanced mortgage, entitles Flagstar, as assignee of the Select Investors Mortgage No. 3, to assume the same priority mortgagee position as Select Investors held under the Select Investors Mortgage No. 1 and No. 2, otherwise National City would unjustly receive a windfall to the extent of the balance of the Select Investors Mortgage No. 2 paid by Select Investors at the consummation of the Select Investors Mortgage No. 3. 29. As the equitable subrogee of Select Investors, the interest of Flagstar, as

assignee of the Select Investors Mortgage No. 3, is prior and superior to that of National City since the Select Investors Mortgage No. 2 was executed and recorded prior to the National City Mortgage, and National City entered into the National City Mortgage with the understanding that it was a junior and subordinate encumbrance. 30. Flagstar has repeatedly sought a subordination agreement from National

City subordinating the National City Mortgage to the Select Investors Mortgage No. 3 presently held by Flagstar, however, National City has failed and/or refused to respond to the requests of Flagstar.

31.

Upon information and belief, National City asserts a claim of interest in

the Property, which interest it contends is superior to the interest of Flagstar and is therefore adverse to Flagstars interest in the Property. 32. The claim of interest of National City in the Property jeopardizes and

diminishes Flagstars mortgagee interest in the Property. 33. In order to provide Flagstar with a clear, marketable, first mortgagee

interest in the Property, National City should be compelled to set forth its interest in the Property, if any, or be barred from subsequently asserting same. 34. Flagstar has no adequate remedy at law.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, FLAGSTAR BANK, F.S.B., respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant it the following relief: a. That this Honorable Court determine that the rights and interests of Defendant, National City Bank of Michigan/Illinois, in the Property are subordinate and inferior to the rights of Plaintiff in the Property because Plaintiff is vested with a first priority mortgagee interest in the Property; That title in and to the Property be quieted in Defendants, Christopher S. Hromek and Erica D. Hromek, subject to the first priority mortgagee interest of Plaintiff; That Plaintiff be awarded its costs and attorney fees incurred in the prosecution of the subject cause of action; and That Plaintiff have such further or different relief in the premises as this Court shall deem just and proper.

b.

c. d.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, GMAC, respectfully requests that this Court grant the following relief:

a.

That this Honorable Court determine the rights and interests of all interested parties, and that the rights of GMAC as mortgagee are superior to all other interests. That the BCL Mortgage was not intended to encumber the Oakman Property or if it does encumber the Oakman Property, the BCL Mortgage is junior to the GMAC Mortgage. That Plaintiff shall have such further or different relief as this Court shall deem just and proper. COUNT II - BREACH OF WARRANTY

b.

c.

15.

On September 16, 2002, Ali Beydoun and Amal Beydoun received the

sum of $247,500.00 and gave Aegis Mortgage a promissory note. 16. In order to secure repayment of the loan, Aegis obtained a first priority

mortgagee interest in the Oakman Property. 17. The Aegis mortgagee interest was intended to have priority against all

other interests in the property. 18. Ali Beydoun and Amal Beydoun warranted to Aegis Mortgage that the

Oakman Property was not encumbered with any other outstanding interests and that Aegis would receive a first priority mortgagee interest. 18. On ___________, MERS, acting as nominee for Aegis Mortgage, assigned

the mortgage to GMAC. This assignment was recorded on ___________, in Liber _____, Page _____, in Wayne County Records. 19. 20. GMAC is now seeking to foreclose on the Oakman Property. These false representations and warranties made by Beydoun were made

with the intention that Aegis would rely on these representations and warranties, and Aegis did in fact rely on these representations and warranties to their detriment.

COUNT III FRAUD 22. Plaintiff incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through ____ of this

Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 23. On September 16, 2002 Ali Beydoun and Amal Beydoun borrowed

$247,500 from Aegis Mortgage. This mortgagee interest was recorded on October 23, 2002 in Wayne County Register of Deeds in Liber 37091, Page 1020. 24. Upon information and belief, at the closing of the insured mortgage,

(GMAC Mortgage), Beydoun produced evidence to Aegis Mortgage that the Oakman Property was unencumbered with any outstanding interests. This warranty was later to be found untrue. 25. Upon information and belief, Beydoun knew of the existence of the

Business mortgagee interest in the Oakman Property at the time he entered into the Aegis Mortgage (GMAC Mortgage). 26. The warranties and representations were made by Beydoun with the

specific intention that Aegis would rely upon them. 27. Had Aegis Mortgage and its assignee, GMAC, known of the falsity of

Beydouns warranties and representations they would not have loaned the money to Beydoun and would not have entered into the Aegis Mortgage. 28. Aegis Mortgage and its assignee, GMAC, did in fact justifiably rely upon

the false and fraudulent representations of Beydoun to their substantial damage and detriment.

29.

Beydoun knew that their representations were false when they were made,

or they made them recklessly, without knowing whether the representations were true.

COUNT IV - NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION 30. Plaintiff incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through ___ of this

Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 31. Beydoun carelessly and/or negligently entered into the insured mortgage,

making various representations and warranties as set forth above, benefited thereby, and knew or should have known that title to the Oakman Property was encumbered by the Business Mortgage. 32. By reason of the negligent and/or careless acts of Beydoun, Beydoun was

incapable of conveying a first priority mortgagee interest in the Oakman Property to Aegis and GMAC, its assignee. 33. Beydouns carelessness and/or negligence includes, but is not limited to: (a) (b) (c) mortgagee 34. their failure to investigate the status of the title to the Oakman Property. concealing facts or recklessly failing to determine the truth of the facts relating to the Business Mortgage; and entering into the insured mortgage and representing that the mortgagee interest conveyed thereby was a first priority interest.

Had Aegis and GMAC, its assignee, known of the falsity of Beydouns

warranties and representations, they would not have loaned the money to Beydoun and would not have entered into the Aegis Mortgage.

35.

As a direct and proximate result of the carelessness and/or negligent acts

of Beydoun, GMAC will suffer damages, losses, and injuries exceeding $25,000.00, plus costs and attorney fees.

Respectfully Submitted, SWISTAK & LEVINE, P.C.

______________________________ Lawrence P. Swistak (P24892) Attorney for Plaintiff 30445 Northwestern Hwy, Suite 140 Farmington Hills, MI 48334 (248) 851-8000 (248) 851-4620 (Fax)