Narrative Opinion Summary
The Michigan Supreme Court ordered oral argument regarding the leave to appeal the Court of Appeals' November 29, 2016 judgment in the case of Wells Fargo Bank, NA, as Trustee for Joan L. Larsen Option One Mortgage Loan Trust, versus SBC IV REO, LLC, with Capitol National Bank as a co-defendant. The Court directed the parties to file supplemental briefs within 42 days on three specific issues: 1. Whether SBC IV REO, LLC qualifies as a bona fide purchaser for value, which would affect the applicability of the doctrine of equitable subrogation in this case. 2. Whether SBC would face prejudice from the application of equitable subrogation. 3. Whether the limitation period under MCL 600.5801(4) is applicable to the plaintiff’s claim for equitable subrogation. The parties were instructed to avoid merely restating their previous application submissions. The order was certified as a true and complete copy by Clerk Larry S. Royster.
Legal Issues Addressed
Bona Fide Purchaser for Valuesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court is considering whether SBC IV REO, LLC meets the criteria of a bona fide purchaser for value, which is crucial for determining the applicability of equitable subrogation.
Reasoning: Whether SBC IV REO, LLC qualifies as a bona fide purchaser for value, which would affect the applicability of the doctrine of equitable subrogation in this case.
Equitable Subrogation and Prejudicesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court is examining if SBC IV REO, LLC would suffer any prejudice from applying the doctrine of equitable subrogation.
Reasoning: Whether SBC would face prejudice from the application of equitable subrogation.
Limitations Period under MCL 600.5801(4)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court is addressing whether the limitations period specified in MCL 600.5801(4) applies to the plaintiff’s claim for equitable subrogation.
Reasoning: Whether the limitation period under MCL 600.5801(4) is applicable to the plaintiff’s claim for equitable subrogation.