Now Accepting New Clients!

Failure to record interest in property does not void foreclosure

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting summary disposition for the defendants-PNC Bank and PNC Mortgage, or by dissolving the temporary injunction tolling the plaintiffs-trusts' redemption period because defendants did not violate the statutory recording requirements in conducting its foreclosure by advertisement. Defendants foreclosed on plaintiffs' property. Plaintiffs later sued, claiming the foreclosure was void because defendants the chain of title did not name them and they failed to record their interest. They received temporary injunctive relief tolling their redemption period. The trial court granted summary disposition for defendants and dissolved the injunction. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiffs' argument that because PNC Bank voluntarily acquired its interest in the property, the failure to record that interest rendered the foreclosure by advertisement voidable. "PNC Bank acquired its interest through a series of mergers, and as a result, acquired the mortgage by operation of law in accordance with federal statute." Further, "even if there were a recording deficiency, plaintiffs did not suffer prejudice as a result." It rejected their argument that their potential exposure to "double liability" is the prejudice they would suffer. It found that Talton and Livonia Prop. Holdings were inapplicable, that their argument was merely speculative, that "it was not the absence of the foreclosing party's name from the chain of title that could prejudice plaintiffs but rather plaintiffs' own failure to redeem the property even after learning the identity" of the foreclosing party, and that it was "undisputed that PNC Bank acquired the property in a full credit bid . . . " and thus, plaintiffs no longer faced exposure. Finally, the court held that "[n]either the recording nor notice requirements of the foreclosure by advertisement statute were violated in this case." Affirmed.

Antenuptial agreement held to be valid and enforceable

The court held that the parties' antenuptial agreement was valid and enforceable, concluding that to invalidate it on the basis of one party's fault would contravene the agreement's clear and unambiguous language, and that as a matter of law, the...

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000