Foreclosure by advertisement; The statute of limitations applicable to breach of contract; MCL 600.5807; The statute of limitations applicable to foreclosure on mortgages; MCL 600.5803; Principle that a mortgage is a lien on real property; Prime Fin. Servs. LLC v. Vinton; Enforcement of a lien; Dane Constr., Inc. v. Royal’s Wine & Deli, Inc.; Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(I)(1); Home-Owners Ins. Co. v. Perkins

The court held that the trial court did not err by finding defendant-bank’s foreclosure proceeding was not barred by the statute of limitations, or by dismissing plaintiffs-homeowners’ complaint under MCR 2.116(I)(1). In response to defendant’s foreclosure proceeding, plaintiffs filed a complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief, an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order, and a motion to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be entered. The trial court entered an order denying plaintiffs’ motion for injunction and dismissing the case, finding they failed to establish an irreparable injury or that an injunction was in the public interest. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the trial court erred by finding defendant’s foreclosure action was not barred by the applicable statute of limitations. “Defendant foreclosed on its future advance mortgage in 2019, which was within four years of its claim accruing for the entire unpaid balance . . . .” As such, even assuming its “foreclosure by advertisement proceeding could be considered ‘an action to recover damages or money due for breach of contract or to enforce the specific performance of a contract’ under MCL 600.5807, it was not time-barred under that provision.” The court also rejected their claim that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition under MCR 2.116(I)(1). “The trial court correctly determined that defendant’s foreclosure by advertisement proceeding was not time-barred, which precluded any award of injunctive relief. Once the trial court concluded that defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the trial court was obliged to dismiss the case under MCR 2.116(I)(1).” Affirmed.