Foreclosure by Advertisement, Part II

November 10’s posting, below, predicted that the Michigan Supreme Court would deny leave to appeal from a decision regarding MERS’ right to foreclose by advertisement. As a lifetime Michigan resident, one should have known better to try to predict a Supreme Court’s decision. Doing so is like trying to predict our Great Lakes-influenced weather.

Continue reading Foreclosure by Advertisement, Part II

Mortgage this!

On August 25, 2011 the Michigan Court of Appeals published a final opinion in Richard v. Schneiderman & Sherman, P.C., No. 297353.  (The court had previously issued an opinion on August 11, 2011 which it later vacated on August 22, 2011.)  The opinion is important because it confirms that Saurman (previously discussed on this blog)  is retroactive in nature; however, it limits the application of Saurman by requiring a mortgagor to challenge the foreclosure by advertisement during the foreclosure or eviction proceedings.  The court specifically points out that that if the foreclosed property has already been sold to a bona fide purchaser then Saurman does not apply.

Continue reading Mortgage this!

Beware — Getting a mortgage, have a mortgage READ THIS!

The Michigan Court of Appeals has issued a decision that will affect thousands of  Michigan properties.  In the consolidated case of Residential Funding Co, LLC v Suaman, April 21, 2011 (NO. 290248 and 291443), the Court of Appeals examined the question of whether foreclosures instituted by Mortgage Electronic Registration System (“MERS”) could properly be foreclosed under Michigan’s foreclosure by advertisement statute.  MERS was developed as system allowing mortgage lenders to more quickly buy and sell mortgage debt in the marketplace.  Many of the larger banks utilize MERS as their agent for mortgages.  MERS has instituted a large percentage of the foreclosures by advertisement currently underway in Michigan.

Continue reading Beware — Getting a mortgage, have a mortgage READ THIS!