REAL ESTATE 37: Trial court can set aside a foreclosure sale if there is a strong case of fraud or irregularity.

Plaintiff secured two mortgages. The first mortgage was in the amount of $297,050 and the second mortgage arose from a fixed-rate balloon note in the amount of $74,250. On September 1, 2008, plaintiff entered into a loan modification agreement F Company. The loan modification agreement defined and named F Company as the “Lender” of funds in the amount of $73,745.12, which was the amount payable under the note and mortgage, and stated that the borrower promised to pay the Unpaid Principal Balance, plus interest, to the order of Lender.

On August 31, 2016, the first mortgage assigned to S Company, all interest it had with regard to plaintiff’s second mortgage. On February 16, 2017, a Notice of Foreclosure on the second mortgage was published in the Oakland County Legal News, and at some point, plaintiff received a copy of the notice which had been attached to her premises.

The Notice of Foreclosure continued that the mortgage would be foreclosed by a sale of the subject premises on March 21, 2017, which would be followed by a six-month redemption period. The sale was subsequently adjourned until July 18, 2017, at which time S Company, purchased the property for $88,000 under a sheriff’s deed.

Proceeding in propria persona, on December 7, 2017, before the six-month redemption period expired, plaintiff filed a quiet title action. Plaintiff alleged that the first mortgage had no beneficial interest in her property to assign to the foreclosing entity, S Company, after she entered into the loan modification agreement with F Company, which was not affiliated with the first mortgage.

When the statutory requirements for mortgage foreclosure are met, a trial court generally lacks authority to set aside a foreclosure sale except in a strong case of fraud or irregularity.  In this case, plaintiff established her claim that S Company did not own an interest in her indebtedness that was secured by the second mortgage because F Company had owned the interest and that debt was paid, a significant irregularity would exist to set aside the foreclosure sale.

In summary, the trial court erred in granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition under the circumstances of this case. Therefore, the appeals court reversed the decision to grant defendants’ motion and remanded this matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

Whether you are trying to save your home from foreclosure or your home loan is upside down and you are unsure of what you should do, you can find the sound advice and helpful support you require at Aldrich Legal Services in Plymouth, Michigan. We have helped many people find solutions to the real estate issues that you now face.

Contact us today to schedule a free consultation and learn more about options that may be available to you.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Is My Conviction Eligible for Expungement?

At one point or another, we have all made mistakes. For some people, those mistakes involved breaking the law. Convictions have a large impact on someone’s life. Beyond the sentencing ranging from community service to fines, to jail or prison...

REAL ESTATE 44: Rule of acquiescence in boundary disputes.

The doctrine of acquiescence provides that, where adjoining property owners acquiesce to a boundary line for a period of at least fifteen years, that line becomes the actual boundary line. The underlying reason for the rule of acquiescence is the promotion of peaceful resolution of boundary disputes.

FAMILY LAW 37: Referee recommended against changing legal custody or parenting time.

Plaintiff requested sole legal custody, arguing that she and defendant had difficulty co-parenting and that defendant would not agree to medical treatment for the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD, need for orthodontic work, and need for vision testing and glasses. Plaintiff also requested an alternating weekly or biweekly schedule during the summer, which would increase her overall parenting time.

REAL ESTATE 40: Tax Tribunal denied petitioner’s claim of a principal residence exemption (PRE).

MCL 211.7cc(2) provides that an owner of property can claim the PRE by filing an affidavit that must state that the property is owned and occupied as a principal residence by that owner of the property on the date that the affidavit is signed and shall state that the owner has not claimed a substantially similar exemption, deduction, or credit on property in another state.

The Steps of Construction Litigation

Most contracting agreements move forward without any problems, but when disputes between contracting parties come up, it can be confusing to understand the legal process to take. The legal experts at Aldrich Legal Services want to make the...

REAL ESTATE 38: Plaintiff fails to make land contract payments.

The land contract stated that T Company sold real property to plaintiff. The land contract further stated that if plaintiff failed to make a monthly payment, T Company could execute the quitclaim deed, thereby terminating plaintiff’s rights to the real property under the land contract.

CONTRACTS 6: Do you understand the clauses in your Purchase Agreement?

The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition, concluding that the claims against the realty companies were barred by the valid release contained in the purchase agreement and that the claims against sellers were required to be resolved in arbitration because they fell within the scope of the arbitration clause in the purchase agreement.

DIVORCE 29: Spousal support in gross is non-modifiable, whereas periodic is subject to modification.

As the name implies, periodic spousal support payments are made on a periodic basis. Periodic spousal support payments are subject to any contingency, such as death or remarriage of a spouse, whereas spousal support in gross is paid as a lump sum or a definite sum to be paid in installments. In addition, one major difference between the two types of spousal support is modifiability. Spousal support in gross is non-modifiable, whereas periodic spousal support is subject to modification pursuant to MCL 555.28.1.

How to Dispute an Insurance Adjustment

When something drastic happens, many people need to take extra steps to rebuild your home, recover property, or pay medical bill collectors. Unfortunately, most people believe they have no backup plan if their insurance company refuses their claim...

PROBATE 28: Probate court enters a protective order providing support for a community spouse.

A probate court’s consideration of the couple’s circumstances cannot involve an assumption that the institutionalized spouse should receive 100% free medical care under Medicaid or an assumption that a community spouse is entitled to maintain his or her standard of living. Medicaid is a need-based program, and a Medicaid recipient is obligated to contribute to his or her care.

REAL ESTATE 36: Plaintiff argued that her claim was not time-barred because it did not accrue until the grandmother’s death.

Plaintiff’s interest in the subject property is best characterized as a remainder estate, because her right to possession of the property was postponed until the occurrence of a specific contingency, that being the deaths of the grandparents. Plaintiff pursued this action within the 15-year limitation period; accordingly, this action is not barred by MCL 600.5801(4).

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