Whether the parties’ land contract violated Michigan’s Usury Act; MCL 438.31c(6); Interest rate; MCL 438.32; Blending approach to determining the interest rate; Mills v Pesetsky; Balloon payment under 15 USC § 1639; The Michigan Consumer Protection Act’s (MCPA) prohibition against unfair, unconscionable, or deceptive methods, acts, or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce; MCL 445.903(1)(a)-(ll); Declaratory relief; Mettler Walloon, LLC v Melrose Twp; Findings of fact & conclusions of law; MCR 2.517(A)(4); Durant v Stahlin

The court held that the parties’ land contract was not usurious, that 15 USC § 1639 was not applicable, that there were no violations of the MCPA, and that any request for declaratory relief was moot. Thus, it affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary disposition for defendant. Defendant purchased plaintiff’s property at a sheriff’s sale after plaintiff defaulted on her mortgage. Before “the redemption period expired, plaintiff sold defendant her interest in the property, her redemption rights, and her rights to any surplus from the sheriff’s sale in exchange for an option to buy” the property back. Plaintiff later exercised her option by entering into a land contract with defendant. Plaintiff subsequently defaulted on the land contract, so defendant initiated forfeiture proceedings. Plaintiff filed this action seeking to void or reform the land contract. On appeal, the court first found the language of the land contract unambiguous, noting it was “clear from the face of the document that the land contract was not usurious.” It next found the land contract did not violate § 1639, noting plaintiff “failed to provide the trial court with any evidence that the land contract constituted a ‘high-cost mortgage’” or that its “balloon payment otherwise violated the statute.” The court next found the land contract did not violate the MCPA, noting plaintiff “simply made a vague allegation in her complaint that defendant engaged in ‘unfair and deceptive treatment’ in the subject transaction. And plaintiff has not cited any particular provisions in her brief on appeal.” It further found the trial court was not obliged to issue a declaratory ruling as to the true amount owed under the land contract because “none of plaintiff’s substantive claims survived defendant’s motion for summary disposition,” so any request for declaratory relief was moot. Finally, the court found the trial court did not err in granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition without making any findings of fact or conclusions of law as it was not required to do so.