Action to quiet title & for declaratory & injunctive relief; MCL 600.2932(1) & (5); Foreclosure by advertisement; MCL 600.3204; Validity of an assignment; Burkhardt v Bailey; Principle that an assignment does not have to be immediately recorded to be valid & enforceable at a later date; Newman v Real Time Resolutions, Inc; “Subscribe”; Kloian v Domino’s Pizza, LLC; Principle that a conveyance executed pursuant to a power of attorney may be recorded with a register of deeds; MCL 565.36; Chain of title; Discharge of a mortgage; MCL 565.41(1); Validity of an affidavit; MCL 565.451a(b); Wilmington Sav Fund Soc'y, FSB v Clare; 1373 Moulin, LLC v Wolf; Laches; Attorney Gen v PowerPick Club; The 15-year statute of limitations for foreclosing on a mortgage; MCL 600.5803; Relationship between laches & the statute of limitations; Tenneco Inc v Amerisure Mut Ins Co

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting defendant summary disposition of plaintiff’s action to quiet title and for declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiff filed this action to quiet title to the property at issue in her favor, and for declaratory and injunctive relief to prohibit defendant from engaging in foreclosure proceedings on the basis that a 2015 recorded assignment was insufficient for it to establish a proper chain of title to the mortgage and that the mortgage had been discharged. The trial court granted summary disposition for defendant on the basis the 2015 “assignment properly established a chain of title, the affidavit was sufficient to set aside any discharge of the mortgage, and laches should not be applied because defendant had initiated foreclosure proceedings within the statutory period of limitations.” On appeal, the court first found defendant properly recorded an assignment in 2015 when the transfer of the note and mortgage occurred in 2011. “On its face, the power-of-attorney document authorized” defendant’s employee to execute an assignment on behalf of the prior mortgagee. “The 2015 recorded assignment was valid, and established the proper chain of title for defendant to seek a foreclosure.” The court next found that “[w]ithout an agreement or discharge signed by defendant, there is nothing for plaintiff to enforce against defendant under MCL 566.1.” As such, “to whatever extent the mortgage discharge could have had effect, the discharge lacked consideration and was not effective as to plaintiff.” Finally, it found that while “plaintiff made decisions that made it harder for her to pay the balance on the mortgage, plaintiff still had a considerable amount of time in which to rearrange her finances to avoid foreclosure. To date, defendant has not skipped a step required to foreclose on the property and the initiation of foreclosure proceedings was within the limitations period.” Affirmed.