Andrews Acheampong v. Bank of New York Mellon, No. 13-1145 (6th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 13a0847n.06 FILED No. 13-1145 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ANDREWS ACHEAMPONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Bank of New York as Trustee for the Certificate Holders of CWABS, Inc. Asset-Backed Certificates 2006-6; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants-Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Sep 26, 2013 DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN BEFORE: ROGERS, GRIFFIN, and DONALD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. After plaintiff Andrews Acheampong defaulted on his mortgage payments, defendant Bank of New York Mellon ( BNYM ), which held an interest in the mortgage, foreclosed on plaintiff s property. Plaintiff brought this action in Michigan state court to invalidate the foreclosure, and defendants removed the case to federal district court. Plaintiff alleged that BNYM lacked standing to foreclose under Michigan law, and that BNYM fraudulently acquired its mortgage interest. Plaintiff also alleged that defendant Bank of America, N.A. ( BANA ), which owned the note secured by the mortgage, denied him a loan modification in violation of Michigan law, and that BANA breached the terms of a trial modification plan it negotiated with plaintiff. Defendants No. 13-1145 Acheampong v. Bank of New York Mellon, et al. moved to dismiss plaintiff s claims, and the district court granted the motion in a written opinion. Plaintiff timely appealed. Having thoroughly reviewed the record, the parties briefs, and the applicable law, we find no error in the district court s analysis. The reasoning supporting the judgment for defendants was clearly and persuasively articulated by the district court, and accordingly there is no need for a detailed written opinion by this court. Any opinion by us would be duplicative and would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment for the reasons stated in that court s opinion. AFFIRMED. -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.