Plaintiff had actual notice of the foreclosure and her right to request a loan modification meeting no later than three months before the actual June 6 foreclosure sale, as evidenced by Plaintiffs email on January 30, 2012, investigating the mailing of the notice, and the copies of the “Notice Pursuant to MCL 600.3205a(4)” and “Notice of Mortgage Foreclosure Sale,” which were printed on January 30, 2012, and which Plaintiff attached to her complaint. (Dkt. No. 1, Attach. 1, Exs. B, C, F.) Because Plaintiff had actual notice of her right to request a loan modification meeting well in advance of the foreclosure sale, any failure of the defendants to comply with the notice requirements imposed by § 600.3204(4)(a) and § 600.3205a did not result in prejudice. See Jackson, 413 N.W.2d at 101) (<HOLDING>). Consequently, Plaintiff has failed to state a
holding that there was no prejudice where had the district court allowed the moving party the proper opportunity to respond the evidence would have been properly in front of the district court holding that a mortgagor in possession is not a fiduciary of the mortgagee within the meaning of the bankruptcy act even though the mortgagor has obligated himself to keep the security intact holding the assignment of the mortgage once the original grant by the mortgagor to the mortgagee has been perfected does not involve a transfer of the property of the debtor  holding that a plaintiff had no injury in fact and consequently no standing when it had no enforceable contract right against the defendant holding that it is evident that no harm is suffered when the mortgagor would have been in no better position had notice been fully proper and   the mortgagor lost no potential opportunity to preserve some or any portion of his interest in the property