Whether the Sixth Circuit has negated the relief it otherwise affords in Conlin to homeowners whose homes have been foreclosed through fraudulent means

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In Conlin v. Mortgage Elec. Reg. Sys., 714 F.3d 355 (6th Cir. 2013) the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals provided that a court can only entertain the setting aside of a foreclosure sale after expiration of the redemption period where a mortgagor (here, Petitioners) makes “a clear showing of fraud, or irregularity,” that such fraudulent conduct “must relate to the foreclosure procedure itself,” and that a mortgagor must also show that they were prejudiced by a foreclosing party’s failure to comply with the Michigan foreclosure by advertisement statute and that, to demonstrate such prejudice, the mortgagor must show that they would have been in a better position to preserve their interest in the property absent defendant’s noncompliance with the statute. While the Sixth Circuit has set a high bar to setting aside a foreclosure, it, nevertheless, provides a means by which mortgagors might find relief from a foreclosure that was accomplished by fraudulent means. Petitioners assert that they sufficiently pled facts to satisfy the high bar set by the Sixth Circuit in Conlin and have shown in their pleadings that they were induced to give up possession of their home in exchange for a promise by U.S. Bank National Association (here, Respondent) that it would negotiate with Petitioners for repurchase of their home, but have not been given the opportunity. Therefore, the questions presented in this case are: 1. Whether the Sixth Circuit has negated the relief it otherwise affords in Conlin to homeowners whose homes have been foreclosed through fraudulent means. u 2. If, indeed, the Sixth Circuit opinion under review negates the relief it otherwise afforded in Conlin to homeowners whose homes have been foreclosed through fraud, does such negation require that this Court provide guidance to the Sixth Circuit, and, by extension, to all federal circuits and state courts, as to the correct application of res judicata and claim preclusion laws to foreclosures obtained through fraud, especially given the expected tsunami of foreclosures in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic? 3. Whether any party may stand in the shoes of a named defendant in a federal fraud complaint? RELATED CASES Arthur Talbot and Kelley Bezrutch v. US Bank National Association, Case No. 19-10214, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. Judgment entered September 3, 2019. Arthur R. Talbot & Kelley A. Bezrutch v. US Bank, National Association, Case No. 19-2118, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Judgment entered May 8, 2020. US Bank National Association v. Kelley Bezrutch & Arthur Talbot, Jr., Case No. 12C-2224, 14B District Court, Washtenaw County, Michigan. Judgment entered March 17, 2014. Arthur Talbot, Jr. & Kelley Bezrutch v. Richard A. Davis, Case No. 14-386-CH, Washtenaw County Circuit Court. Judgment entered June 11, 2014. Arthur Talbot, Jr. and Kelley Bezrutch v. Richard A. Davis, Case No. 323240, Michigan Court of Appeals. Judgment entered December 17, 2015.