Statutory redemption period; Setting aside a foreclosure sale; Bryan v JPMorgan Chase Bank; Sweet Air Inv, Inc v Kenney

The court held that “plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the validity of the foreclosure sale of the property, so the trial court did not err by granting defendant summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10).” It also clarified that the expiration of the redemption period implicated standing, not legal capacity to sue. On appeal, plaintiffs argued that a foreclosure sale can be set aside even after expiration of the statutory redemption period if there is a showing of fraud or a substantial irregularity, and they contended that Bryan supported that position. The court disagreed, noting that “Bryan merely suggests that equity permits the extension of the statutory redemption period upon a clear showing of fraud or irregularity. Michigan precedent supports that proposition.” But no "decision has gone so far as to establish that equity permits the revival of the statutory redemption period. Beyond that, plaintiffs clearly stated in the trial court that they wanted relief even more drastic than revival of the statutory redemption period. As plaintiffs’ counsel put it: ‘[W]e’re not asking to revive the redemption period. We’re asking for the foreclosure to be set aside entirely.’ Significantly, no" cited authority “even contemplates such drastic relief.” Plaintiffs correctly observed that, in Sweet Air, “this Court ruled that ‘an excessive claim for the amount due warrants setting aside a foreclosure sale . . . if it is significantly excessive or in bad faith and an attempt was made to redeem the property.’” Plaintiffs focused “solely on the reference to a claim being ‘excessive or in bad faith,’ while entirely ignoring the separate requirement that plaintiffs attempted to redeem the property. Even if plaintiffs’ claim of a substantial irregularity were true, ‘it would not warrant setting aside the foreclosure sale because no effort was made to redeem’ the property.” The parties agreed “that the redemption period expired on” 7/11/24. The parties further agreed “that plaintiffs filed their complaint on [8/15/24], which was after the expiration of the redemption period. Therefore, because plaintiffs failed to exercise their right of redemption within the statutory redemption period, their rights in and to the property were extinguished, and they lacked standing to challenge the foreclosure sale.” Affirmed.