- 5 -
various other entities and individuals regarding Fleet’s
foreclosure on the Emerson house.
We shall not painstakingly recount in its entirety
petitioner’s litigation against Fleet and various other entities
and individuals. To briefly summarize, the Circuit Court for the
County of Kent, Michigan, and the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Michigan (twice) decided against petitioner
every issue raised by him in each of his lawsuits (including
whether Fleet was a holder in due course with respect to
petitioner’s mortgage and was entitled to foreclose on the
Emerson house). The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the order
of the Circuit Court for the County of Kent and the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (twice) affirmed the judgments of
the U.S. District Court. Stewart v. Fleet Fin., 229 F.3d 1154
(6th Cir. 2000) (table); Stewart v. Fleet Fin. Group, 129 F.3d
1265 (6th Cir. 1997) (table); Stewart v. Birmingham Mortgage
Corp., No. 190235, 1998 WL 1993019 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 1998).
Petitioner’s argument that the proceeds of the foreclosure
on the Emerson house should have paid off the liabilities at
issue is unpersuasive. Petitioner failed to raise a spousal
defense, make a valid challenge to the appropriateness of
respondent’s intended collection action, or offer alternative
means of collection. These issues are now deemed conceded. Rule
331(b)(4). Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s determination to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011