Foreclosure; Redemption; MCL 600.3140(1) & (7)

Concluding nothing in the record showed that plaintiffs were entitled to equitable or legal relief in this case involving a sheriff’s sale of foreclosed property, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendant. The sale was conducted on 9/29/22. The property was sold “to the highest bidder, defendant, for $117,184.38.” A sheriff’s deed was executed on 10/13/22. It contained “the date of the sale, the purchase amount, and the identity of the purchaser. The deputy” who conducted the sale “also executed an affidavit of auctioneer, which stated that the deed would become operative at the expiration of six months from the date of the sale, on [3/29/23], if plaintiffs did not redeem the property. The deputy’s affidavit and defendant’s affidavit of purchaser also included information about the date of the sale, the final date of the redemption period, contact information for a redemption calculation, the purchase price, interest rate, and the amount of the redemption servicing fee.” Plaintiffs filed this action on 6/20/23. Their appellate arguments rested “on their assertions that the sheriff’s sale occurred on [10/13/22], the redemption period for the property expired on [4/13/23], and defendant failed to provide a redemption calculation within the redemption period.” But the court found that the record did not support their assertions. Rather, it showed “that defendant followed the proper procedure after the sheriff’s sale and properly calculated the statutory redemption period and that plaintiffs and their title company did not. It appears that plaintiffs’ title company had a practice of calculating the redemption period from the date the Sheriff’s Deed was signed and not the date of the sale but, . . . this calculation does not comply with Michigan laws regarding how the redemption period is calculated.” In addition, defendant “provided plaintiffs and the title company with the Sheriff’s Deed containing the actual date of the sale and the last date of the redemption period. In light of the clear documentation reflecting the date of the sheriff’s sale, the end of the redemption period, and the redemption amount,” plaintiffs were not entitled to relief.