You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Abn Amro Mortgage Group, Inc. v. Household Bank, Fsb

Citations: 727 N.W.2d 616; 477 Mich. 1032Docket: 132488

Court: Michigan Supreme Court; February 26, 2007; Michigan; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Michigan Supreme Court issued an order on February 27, 2007, regarding case number SC: 132488, with Chief Justice Clifford W. Taylor and Justices Michael F. Cavanagh, Elizabeth A. Weaver, Marilyn Kelly, Maura D. Corrigan, and Robert P. Young, Jr. The court denied the application for leave to appeal the August 8, 2006 judgment from the Court of Appeals in the case involving plaintiff-appellant ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. and defendants-appellees Household Bank, F.S.B., and Comerica Bank, along with additional defendants Vladimir Abramovich and Galina Abramovich. The court found that the questions presented for review were not persuasive enough to warrant further examination. Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certified the order as a true and complete copy.

Legal Issues Addressed

Denial of Leave to Appeal

Application: The Michigan Supreme Court exercised its discretion to deny the application for leave to appeal, indicating that the issues presented were not sufficiently compelling to merit further review.

Reasoning: The court denied the application for leave to appeal the August 8, 2006 judgment from the Court of Appeals in the case involving plaintiff-appellant ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. and defendants-appellees Household Bank, F.S.B., and Comerica Bank, along with additional defendants Vladimir Abramovich and Galina Abramovich.

Discretionary Review by Supreme Court

Application: The court determined that the questions presented for review did not meet the threshold for granting certiorari, reflecting the court's discretionary power in selecting cases for review.

Reasoning: The court found that the questions presented for review were not persuasive enough to warrant further examination.