Mortgage foreclosure; Foreclosure by advertisement; MCL 600.3201; Cheff v. Edwards; Effect of defects or irregularities in a foreclosure proceeding; Kim v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA; Whether there was a defect in the foreclosure notice rendering the foreclosure deeds void; Jackson Inv. Corp. v. Pittsfield Prod., Inc.; Whether a redemption period should have been extended due to a claimed irregularity in the foreclosure process; MCL 600.3240; Gordon Grossman Bldg. Co. v. Elliott; An equitable extension period to redeem; Schulthies v. Barron; Necessary party; MCR 2.205(A); Mason Cnty. v. Department of Cmty. Health; Quiet title; Michigan Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. v. Morren; Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10); Bazzi v. Sentinel Ins. Co.; Breach of contract; Principle that a trial court is not bound by a party’s choice of labels; Stephens v. Worden Ins. Agency, LLC

Concluding that the trial court should have extended the redemption period as to one of the properties at issue because the evidence showed a possible irregularity in the foreclosure process, the court reversed summary disposition for defendant as to that property. But it affirmed as to the other property, finding no error in that regard. It also affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim because the claim was not distinct from the quiet title claim. They purchased two houses from defendant. Plaintiff-Angela Allstead bought the 11th Street property and plaintiff-Glen Allstead bought the 16th Street property. They argued on appeal that the trial court erred in not setting aside the foreclosure sale deeds due to a defect in the foreclosure notice (which stated that the foreclosure sale would occur on 5/31/18 when it was in fact scheduled for 5/24/18). The court disagreed that “there was a defect in the foreclosure notice that rendered the deeds void.” But it agreed that “the trial court should have extended the redemption period on the basis of the claimed irregularity in the foreclosure process that plaintiffs had satisfied the mortgage on the 11th Street property.” The court determined that the defect in the notice here “rendered the sales voidable, not void.” It noted that plaintiffs were not prejudiced by the defect, as they “were fully able to challenge the validity of the foreclosure, on the basis of their assertion that they satisfied the mortgages.” However, a clear showing of irregularity or fraud can support “an equitable extension period to redeem a property . . . .” Attached to their complaint plaintiffs presented “a copy of defendant’s handwritten ledger for the 11th Street property.” There were two statements at the bottom of the ledger: “Glen & Angela Allstead paid [$]61,000 on 5-[indiscernible]-2014,” and “House paid on 5-16-14.” The court held that at a minimum, these statements on defendant’s ledger established “an irregularity in the foreclosure process related to the 11th Street property.” But plaintiffs offered no evidence supporting “their argument that the mortgage for the 16th Street property was similarly paid off.” The trial court erred in granting defendant summary disposition on plaintiffs’ quiet title claim as to the 11th Street property but not as to the 16th Street property. Partially reversed and remanded.