e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 77018
Opinion Date : 02/17/2022
e-Journal Date : 03/07/2022
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : Statebridge Co., LLC v. Fells
Practice Area(s) : Real Property
Judge(s) : Per Curiam – Boonstra, Ronayne Krause, and Cameron
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

Foreclosure; Deficiency judgment; Whether MCL 600.3280 provided a valid defense

Summary

The court concluded that because MCL 600.3280 was the only defense defendant asserted in opposing plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition, and because he failed to show a genuine issue of material fact as to the purchaser of the property at the sheriff’s sale, the trial court did not err in granting plaintiff summary disposition and denying defendant’s summary disposition motion in this action for a deficiency judgment. The undisputed record evidence established that “defendant executed a promissory note, which was secured by the mortgage. Defendant defaulted, which resulted in a foreclosure by advertisement. The property was sold to” a nonparty, T, “for $9,576.32. At the time of the sale, defendant owed $114,803.75 on the note. The note, which had a deficiency balance of $105,227.43, was then assigned to plaintiff. Defendant admitted during the lower court proceeding that he defaulted on a promissory note now owned by plaintiff and that plaintiff had properly calculated the amount due.” On appeal, he did not dispute that he breached the contract. Instead, he argued that the trial court erred by holding that MCL 600.3280 did not provide a valid defense here. For the statute to apply, “two conditions must be met: (1) ‘the mortgagee, payee or other holder of the obligation’ must ‘become . . . the purchaser’ or must take title to the real property ‘at [the] sale either directly or indirectly,’ and (2) the ‘mortgagee, payee or other holder of the secured obligation’ must have brought the action for recovery of a deficiency.” The sheriff’s deed signed after the foreclosure sale here showed that T “purchased the property for $9,576.32.” Nothing in the record suggested that T was “an agent of plaintiff or one of plaintiff’s assignors.” Since there was no evidence to support a finding that “plaintiff, the ‘payee or other holder of the obligation,’ became ‘the purchaser, . . . or has taken title [of the property. . . either directly or indirectly,’” MCL 600.3280 did not apply. Affirmed.

Full PDF Opinion