Actions arising from the foreclosure & sale of a condo; Motion for relief from judgment pursuant to MCR 2.612(B); Lawrence M Clarke, Inc v Richco Constr, Inc; Whether the trial court complied with the court’s remand instructions; MCL 600.3238’s notice requirements; Mootness; Scope of the court’s remand instructions; Detroit Club Holdings (DCH)

Rejecting defendant-Edward’s (also known as Kloian) argument that the circuit court failed to comply with remand instructions, the court affirmed its order affirming the district court’s order denying his motion for relief from judgment and dismissing his third amended complaint in one of these consolidated cases. The cases arose from the foreclosure and later sale of a condo Kloian had purchased. In 2016, the condo association posted a Notice of a Foreclosure Sale on the condo and published it in a newspaper. A sheriff’s sale was later held, and plaintiff-DCH purchased the unit. It later filed a complaint in district court against Kloian, alleging he remained in possession of the condo and that DCH had a right to enter into possession of it pursuant to MCL 600.3238. A default judgment was entered against him. He “filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to MCR 2.612(B), contending, in relevant part, that he had never received notice of any actions against the property[.]” In another case on appeal, plaintiffs-Soule and Langenderfer sued “Kloian to quiet title and for slander of title as to the property.” He then sued them, DCH, and others. In a prior appeal, the court “required that 'on remand, if the circuit court again determines that DCH failed to comply with the notice requirements in MCL 600.3238, it must determine whether [Soule and Langenderfer] are innocent third parties who will be prejudiced if the default judgment is set aside.’” On remand, the circuit court “affirmed the district court’s decision to deny Kloian’s motion for relief from judgment on the ground that Soule and Langenderfer would be prejudiced if the district court’s judgment were set aside.” In this appeal, Kloian asserted the circuit court failed to comply with the court’s instructions because they required it “to determine whether DCH complied with MCL 600.3238 before deciding whether Soule and Langenderfer were innocent third persons who would be prejudiced under MCR 2.612(B).” But the court found that the conditional nature of its language on which he relied showed “that the circuit court did not err.” Further, the circuit court “addressed whether DCH complied with the notice requirements in MCL 600.3238 by ruling that the issue was moot in light of” its ruling on the status of Soule and Langenderfer. Kloian failed to show it erred in this determination.