This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are used for visitor analysis, others are essential to making our site function properly and improve the user experience. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Click Accept to consent and dismiss this message or Deny to leave this website. Read our Privacy Statement for more.
Home   |   Contact Us   |   Sign In   |   Register
Article Library
Blog Home All Blogs
Search all posts for:   

 

View all (1227) posts »
 

Michigan: Expunging Deeds and Quiet Title Actions

Posted By USFN, Thursday, April 9, 2015
Updated: Wednesday, September 23, 2015

April 9, 2015 

 

by Jeffrey T. Goudie
Orlans Associates, PC – USFN Member (Michigan)

The case discussed here illustrates the importance of monitoring evolving foreclosure case law. In Trademark Properties of Michigan, L.L.C. v. Fannie Mae (Mich. App. No. 313296, Nov. 18, 2014), the Court of Appeals held that an affidavit based upon a reversed COA opinion could not expunge a sheriff’s deed or revive a foreclosed mortgage.

MERS foreclosed a condominium mortgage on May 11, 2010. Fannie Mae purchased the property at a sheriff’s sale on May 11, 2010 and recorded the sheriff’s deed ten days later. The property was never redeemed. The condominium association foreclosed on its lien for non-payment of assessments, and purchased the property at the sheriff’s sale on February 15, 2011, with a final redemption date of August 15, 2011. On August 9, 2011, the lender for MERS recorded an affidavit to expunge the sheriff’s sale to Fannie Mae. The affidavit averred that the sheriff’s deed was void ab initio, based on Residential Funding Co, LLC v. Saurman, 292 Mich. App. 321 (2011). [In Saurman, the COA had held that a mortgagee had no right to foreclose by advertisement under MCL 600.3204(1)(d) because it was not the noteholder with a property interest.] The condominium association then filed a quiet title action, arguing that the affidavit could not revive a foreclosed mortgage.

The Court of Appeals held that since the Michigan Supreme Court had reversed Saurman almost a year earlier, MERS’s contention that its mortgage interest still encumbered the property failed. The court also held that the Saurman reversal meant that the foreclosure had extinguished the MERS mortgage, and the association had the superior interest in the property.

©Copyright 2015 USFN. All rights reserved.
April e-Update

This post has not been tagged.

Permalink | Comments (0)
 
Membership Software Powered by YourMembership  ::  Legal