734-359-7018
Now Accepting New Clients!
Blog

REAL ESTATE 83: Circuit court entered an order vacating the district court’s termination of redemption rights and permitting KN to redeem the property.

KN purchased condominium unit 20 by covenant deed. The deed was recorded, and it showed KN’s home address in Ann Arbor, Michigan. KN then sold the unit to non-party AC on land contract.

Property Taxes / Condominium Association Dues

AC failed to pay property taxes or condominium association dues, as required by the land contract. In October of 2014, the condominium association sent a notice to KN at his Ann Arbor address of a lien for unpaid condominium assessments. The association also recorded a notice of the lien, which also listed KN’s Ann Arbor address.

KN received the notice but took no action because he relied on AC’s assurances that she would pay any outstanding dues. AC continued to evade payment. KN contends that on March 30, 2016, to avoid tax foreclosure, he paid $8,200.31 on the 2014 delinquent real estate taxes to the Wayne County Register of Deeds. KN further contends that after pursuing foreclosure against AC, she agreed to vacate the condominium by May 1, 2016, and quit-claim her interest back to KN.

Notice of Foreclosure

However, in the meantime, on March 16, 2016, the Association posted a Notice of a Foreclosure Sale on the condominium and published the notice in the Detroit Legal News. The notice stated an amount owed of $4,950.00 and a Sheriff’s sale date of April 21, 2016. No notice was sent to KN’s Ann Arbor address. Unbeknownst to KN, the Sheriff’s sale was held as scheduled, and DCH purchased the condominium.

DCH contends that on April 27, 2016, it was unable to gain access to the condominium unit when its representative attempted to conduct an inspection. The inspector deemed the property vacant and in damaged condition—a broken window, a damaged garage door, and overgrown grass. Relying on MCL 600.3238(6), DCH then initiated summary proceedings for possession of the property, asserting that KN unreasonably refused to allow DCH access to the condominium unit for an inspection and that damage to the property had occurred.

Default Judgment of Possession

On June 9, 2016, the district court entered a default judgment of possession against KN, ordering that DCH had a right to possession and that KN was to be evicted. DCH then recorded an affidavit of termination of redemption rights with the Wayne County Register of Deeds.

Circuit Court

The circuit court noted that everybody knew that KN did not live at the condominium, yet DCH continued to mail notices to the vacant property and made no further efforts to discover KN’s whereabouts. The circuit court ultimately concluded that MCL 600.3240 and MCL 559.208, when read in conjunction, indicated that KN’s period to exercise his right of redemption would have been six months.

In October 2017, the circuit court entered an order vacating the district court’s default judgment, and the affidavit of termination of redemption rights, and permitting KN to redeem the property before January 5, 2018.

Helping Save Your Home from Mortgage Foreclosure

Are trying to save your home from foreclosure and are unsure of what you should do?  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

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000

FAMILY LAW 83: A trial court can terminate a parent’s rights and permit a stepparent to adopt a child.

A trial court has discretion to terminate a parent’s rights and permit a stepparent to adopt a child when the conditions of MCL 710.51(6) are met. MCL 710.51(6)(b) requires the petitioner to establish that the other parent had the ability to visit, contact, or communicate with the children, and substantially failed or neglected to do so for a period of two years.

PROBATE 53: The trust agreement included an Incontestability Provision.

A settlor’s intent is to be carried out as nearly as possible. Generally, in terrorem clauses are valid and enforceable. However, a provision in a trust that purports to penalize an interested person for contesting the trust or instituting another proceeding relating to the trust shall not be given effect if probable cause exists for instituting a proceeding contesting the trust or another proceeding relating to the trust.

FAMILY LAW 82: Court stated it would terminate the personal protection order (PPO) after the parties present documentation of the initiation of the divorce proceedings.

However, the trial court concluded that these matters should, in fact, be in the province and the jurisdiction of the Family Division and in that respect, having issued a personal protection order, the Court stated it would terminate the personal protection order after the parties present documentation of the initiation of the divorce proceedings.

What to Do When Homeowners Insurance Denies Your Claim

Since 1955, homeowners insurance has helped owners protect their property and belongings against damages and theft. According to the Insurance Information Institute, over 93% of homeowners in the US have homeowners insurance coverage, paying around...

What to Look for in a Criminal Defense Attorney

Originally posted on 10/20/2017 If you are charged with a crime, you could face severe penalties that could include financial fines, public service, or even jail time. For those in the Michigan area, hiring an attorney experienced in...

PROBATE 51: Trust filed a petition to determine title to credit union account.

The probate court explained that the owners of the account are S and J. When S passes, J becomes the owner of the account. J is the one who had the authority to make the designation. Nowhere in any documents is there a designation by J that SJ be the owner -- or the beneficiary of the account. The designation made by his father was no longer binding because he was no longer the owner at the time J passed away.

Invoking Your Right to Remain Silent

Originally posted on 07/19/2017 While the “right to remain silent” represents one of your most inalienable rights, many people have a few misconceptions about how it works. Many people receive their understanding of this...

Arrests made by tracking cell phones may be illegal

Originally posted on 02/10/2017 Law enforcement agencies are always looking for an edge in fighting crime. As cell phones have become an indispensable part of life for many people, authorities have taken to using these devices to track...

Could I lose my job over a drunk driving arrest?

Originally posted on 01/20/2017 When potential clients ask us questions about criminal defense representation (particularly for drunk driving offenses) one of the most common is whether they will lose their job.  Naturally, this...

FAMILY LAW 77: Court awarded plaintiff sole legal custody; defendant was unwilling to work with plaintiff.

For joint custody to work, parents must be able to agree with each other on basic issues in child rearing including health care, religion, education, day to day decision making and discipline and they must be willing to cooperate with each other in joint decision making. If two equally capable parents are unable to cooperate and to agree generally concerning important decisions affecting the welfare of their children, the court has no alternative but to determine which parent shall have sole custody of the children.

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
consultation
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000
734-237-6482
734-366-4405