Action for possession after land contract forfeiture; Subject-matter jurisdiction under the Summary Proceedings Act; MCL 600.5704; MCL 600.5726; Land contract language/lack of a forfeiture clause; Waiver; Other available remedies; MCL 600.5750

The court held that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s action for possession after land contract forfeiture under the Summary Proceedings Act (SPA) where the contract did not contain a forfeiture clause. Thus, it vacated the circuit court’s order that affirmed the district court’s judgment of possession after land contract forfeiture and order of eviction, and remanded to the district court for entry of an order dismissing the case without prejudice. Reviewing the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint for possession after land contract forfeiture, the court noted “that paragraph 4 alleges: ‘The land contract was forfeited in accordance with the terms of the land contract.’” But plaintiff’s claim was based on the written land contract, which she “attached to the complaint in compliance with MCR 2.113(C)(1). In doing so, the land contract ‘was made a part of the pleading for all purposes.’” And it was clear from the land contract language “that its terms do not ‘expressly provide for termination or forfeiture, or give the vendor the right to declare a forfeiture, in consequence of the nonpayment of any moneys required to be paid under the contract or any other material breach of the contract’” as required under MCL 600.5726. Thus, it was “not apparent from the complaint’s allegations that the matter alleged comes within summary proceedings to recover possession of premises under the” SPA and that the district court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the matter. Plaintiff’s waiver argument failed “because courts, whether upon challenge or sua sponte, are obliged to address the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction[.]” While plaintiff could not proceed in the district court under the SPA, “other judicial process and remedies are available to her.”