The trial court’s jurisdiction; The Financial Institution Reform, Recovery & Enforcement Act (FIRREA); Failure to exhaust administrative proceedings; 12 USC § 1821(d)(13)(D)(ii); Claims “relating to” the acts or omissions of a failed bank or the FDIC as receiver; The effect of a purchase agreement on jurisdiction; Default as a sanction; Swain v Morse; MCR 2.119(E); Failure to appear at a contested motion hearing; Whether the default was authorized under MCR 2.401(G) or 2.504(B); Motion to set aside a default; Good cause; Shawl v Spence Bros, Inc; Meritorious defenses; Real party in interest

In this action seeking to prevent defendant-Amos Financial from foreclosing on two properties, the court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over most of the claims raised by plaintiffs and the intervenors due to the FIRREA. The trial court also abused its discretion in denying Amos Financial’s motion to set aside the default entered against it for failing to appear at a contested motion hearing. Further, intervenor-Stefanos Peroustianis was not a real party in interest and should be dismissed from the action in his individual capacity. Thus, the court vacated the default against Amos Financial and the trial court’s subsequent orders, including those as to “damages, attorney fees, and the return of the properties,” and remanded “for a determination of Amos Financial’s liability on the merits of the limited claims within the” trial court’s jurisdiction. It agreed with Amos Financial that many of the claims, while ostensibly pled against it, “actually related to the acts or omissions of” its predecessor in interest (Premier Bank) or the FDIC, which closed that bank and sold the loans relating to the properties to Amos Financial. As a result, the FIRREA required them “to exhaust administrative proceedings relating to these claims” and their failure to do so deprived the trial court of jurisdiction under § 1821(d)(13)(D)(ii). Plaintiffs asserted that the FIRREA’s jurisdictional restrictions did not apply “because (1) their claims involve Amos Financial rather than the FDIC or Premier Bank and (2) the purchase agreement between Amos Financial and the FDIC makes clear that Amos Financial purchased assets without any protections afforded to the FDIC, which plaintiffs” appeared to contend included FIRREA’s jurisdictional limitations. The court rejected both arguments, and determined that the only claims involving Amos Financial’s independent conduct were its post-purchase actions “involving alleged violation of the foreclosure statutes during the foreclosures on the” properties. Thus, these were “the only claims not subject to FIRREA’s administrative requirements, and . . . not jurisdictionally barred by” § 1821(d)(13)(D)(ii). It also held that default “was an extreme and unwarranted sanction on the facts of this case, and the trial court abused its discretion by failing to recognize good cause to set” it aside.