and defendant’s burden under federal law to establish the validity of his title by demonstrating statutory compliance precluded the trial court from granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). Defendant contends that, notwithstanding a failure of proofs regarding one of the statutory notice provisions, we may yet affirm the trial court’s decision upon equitable grounds because (1) plaintiffs’ complaint to quite title invokes the equity jurisdiction of the court, and (2) plaintiffs’ conduct was inequitable because they had actual notice of the events that led to the seizure and sale of their home, but failed to take any action to raise the procedural deficiencies they now allege until after defendant received title. See, e.g., Howard, supra at 508 (<HOLDING>). Although defendant’s appellate argument may
holding that the citizen suit notice requirements cannot be avoided by employing a flexible or pragmatic construction and that plaintiffs suit must be dismissed where plaintiff had not strictly complied with the notice requirements holding this court will not consider constitutional challenge where appellant failed to strictly comply with rule 9e holding that owners notice substantially complied with federal requirements because the owner intended to demolish the housing units and noted that ajlthough the notice did not follow the statutory language it would have been misleading had it strictly followed the statute holding that even though the government had not strictly complied with the statutory requirements the plaintiffs were not entitled to relief because they failed to challenge that noncompliance in a prompt fashion holding that the terms of the trust deed foreclosure statutes must be strictly complied with