Schulthies v. Barron, Docket No. 4714
Decision Date | 27 February 1969 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 4714 |
Citation | 167 N.W.2d 784,16 Mich.App. 246 |
Parties | Vera W. SCHULTHIES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Orville H. BARRON, Defendant-Appellant. . 1 |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
James E. Mies, Brashear, Brashear, Mies & Duggan, Livonia, for appellant.
Frank G. Garavaglia, Detroit, for appellee.
Before FITZGERALD, P.J., and BRONSON and R. B. BURNS, JJ.
Plaintiff, Vera Schulthies, defaulted on a $5,000 mortgage on her home, executed on June 28, 1965. This mortgaged property was foreclosed by advertisement and sold at auction, proper notice having been published and posted upon the premises. Plaintiff concedes that the foreclosure proceedings were in compliance with the statute. Her claim is that unless she is allowed to redeem an injustice will occur in that (1) although the statutory redemption period of six months, plaintiff believed it to be one year, 1 and (2) defendant purchased this property at the sheriff's sale for approximately one-third of its market value. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.
The law in Michigan does not allow an equitable extension of the period to redeem from a statutory foreclosure sale in connection with a mortgage foreclosed by advertisement and posting of notice in the absence of a clear showing of fraud, or irregularity. 2 Heimerdinger v. Heimerdinger (1941), 299 Mich. 149, 299 N.W. 844.
In Cameron v. Adams (1875), 31 Mich. 426, the plaintiff became severely ill shortly before the period of redemption ran out, and was unable to conduct any business. The Court in Cameron wrestled with much the same problem as the case at bar. It finally concluded that:
Although the trial court found that the price paid at foreclosure sale was well below the worth of the property, the need for certainty in such sales is, under present law, compelling. The purpose of posted notice is to inform the mortgagor so that he may see that a price adequate to protect his interests is obtained at the sale. The plaintiff did not do this. That she did not understand the nature of the posted notice is no defense.
This Court cannot amend the statutory redemption provisions of the State of Michigan by extending the doctrine of fraud and irregularity to include mistake as a third exception in statutory foreclosure.
Although onerous, we reverse.
1 The statutory redemption period has been one year, but effective January 1, 1965, this was reduced to six months (under the conditions...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kloss v. RBS Citizens, N.A.
...extended unless there is a “clear showing of fraud[ ] or irregularity.” Overton, 2009 WL 1507342, at *1 (citing Schulthies v. Barron, 16 Mich.App. 246, 167 N.W.2d 784, 785 (1969)). Some courts have framed the requirement that mortgagors redeem their property within the statutory period as a......
-
Piccirilli v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
...by advertisement and posting of notice in the absence of a clear showing of fraud, or irregularity." Schulthies v. Barron, 16 Mich. App. 246, 247-48, 167 N.W.2d 784 (1969); see also Sweet Air Investment, Inc. v. Kenney, 275 Mich. App. 492, 497, 729 N.W.2d 656 (2007) ("The Michigan Supreme C......
- Elson v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co.
-
Collins v. CitiMortgage, Inc.
...only if “the mortgagor has made ‘a clear showing of fraud, or irregularity.’ ” Conlin, 714 F.3d at 359 (quoting Schulthies v. Barron, 16 Mich.App. 246, 167 N.W.2d 784, 785 (1969)). As described in Conlin, courts are divided as to whether this issue is one of standing, see, e.g., Overton v. ......