Now Accepting New Clients!

Homeowner lacks standing to challenge foreclosure by advertisement after expiration of redemption period

Rejecting the plaintiff's claims that she had standing to bring this action to challenge the sheriff's sale and that defects in the foreclosure process caused her actual prejudice, the court affirmed the trial court's order granting the defendant-bank summary disposition. The case arose from a foreclosure by advertisement. As to the standing issue, plaintiff claimed the five-year limitation period in MCL 600.5801(1) applied, and cited Snell. However, the court noted that this case did not involve summary eviction proceedings and concluded that its decision in Bryan applied. In Bryan, it "held that a homeowner plaintiff lacked standing to contest the validity of foreclosure by advertisement proceeding because the redemption period had expired." As the plaintiff "allowed the statutory redemption period to lapse without redeeming her interest in the property, she lacked standing to challenge the propriety of the foreclosure proceeding, absent a clear showing of fraud or irregularity." Further, she could "only set aside the foreclosure sale if she was prejudiced by the defects or irregularities in the foreclosure proceedings." She claimed that "there was a violation of MCL 600.3204(3) because the assignments were a nullity causing a chain of title defect." She asserted "the assignments of the mortgage were not accompanied by the promissory note and assigned nothing but the beneficial interest, which did not exist." Thus, she claimed the bank did not have authority to foreclose under MCL 600.3204(1)(d). However, pursuant to Saurman, the trial court properly rejected her claim that the bank could not foreclose by advertisement without any interest in the related promissory note. Further, as a third party, plaintiff was precluded from challenging the validity of the assignments. Her suggestion that the UCC applies to a mortgage transaction was unfounded. Plaintiff also claimed that the former MCL 600.3204(4) "was violated because she was not allowed to modify her loan even though she was eligible and qualified." However, the court concluded that even if it accepted her claim as true, the trial court correctly characterized as moot her claim of entitlement to a judicial foreclosure, accurately observing that she did "not file a motion or otherwise show that she satisfied the conditions contained in MCL 600.3205c(8) before the redemption period ended." Thus, she failed to avail herself of the only available remedy for violation of the mortgage modification statute and could not challenge the modification process after the sheriff's sale.

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