Padgett Law Group
Menu

PLG NEWS

News + updates + recent press

Categories

All
Arkansas
Bankruptcy
Case Law
Closings
Compliance
Evictions
FDCPA
FHA
Florida
Foreclosure
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Legislative
Michigan
Moratoriums
Ohio
PANDIFFERENT
Pennsylvania
Personnel
Real Estate
Regulatory
REO
Tennessee
Texas
Title
Trending Cases

Archives

January 2023
November 2022
September 2022
August 2022
June 2022
April 2022
March 2022
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
August 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
February 2019
January 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
March 2018
January 2018
December 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017

Michigan Court of Appeal Issues Ruling on Foreclosure Statute of Limitations

12/7/2020

 
On November 12, 2020, in an unpublished opinion in James Akouri and Karen Akouri vs. Comerica Bank, the State of Michigan Court of Appeals confirmed not only that the six-year statute of limitations to pursue a suit on a note begins running at the time of acceleration rather than default, but also that failure to pursue action on a note within six years did not bar foreclosure of the mortgage within 15 years. The decision stems from a 2005 home equity line of credit encumbering the mortgagors’ home with a maturity date in 2025. The mortgagors stopped making payments in 2006, but it was not until 2015 lender sent a letter to the mortgagors requiring immediate payment in full. The Mortgagors did not meet the demand. However, foreclosure by advertisement proceedings were not commenced until about four years later, in 2019.
The mortgagors argued that any action was unenforceable under MCL 600.5807(1) and MCL 600.5807(9), because the default occurred in 2006 but the foreclosure proceeding was not initiated until 2019, 13 years later, and therefore more than the 6 years permitted for collection on a Note. They further argued that therefore, without an enforceable HELOC, the lender also lost the right to enforce the  mortgage. Alternatively, the lender argued that it had not accelerated the balance due until 2015, and the foreclosure proceeding was initiated only 4 years later in 2019.  Thus, even if the statute of limitations began running in 2006 when plaintiffs first defaulted, defendant still initiated the foreclosure proceeding well within the 15-year statutory limitations period for foreclosure of a mortgage. The lower court agreed, and the mortgagors appealed.

 MCL 600.5807 holds that “The period of limitations is 6 years for an action to recover damages or money due for breach of contract[.]” In tandem with this,  MCL 600.5803 further provides, “No person shall bring or maintain any action or proceeding to foreclose a mortgage on real estate unless he commences the action or proceeding within 15 years after the mortgage becomes due or within 15 years after the last payment was made on the mortgage.”

The court confirmed that the timing of acceleration of the debt was solely within lender’s discretion.  While the mortgagors’  2006 default was sufficient to warrant acceleration, the option was not exercised until 2015. It wasn’t until the mortgagors failed to pay the entire balance due after receipt of the acceleration letter that the statute of limitations began to run under MCL 600.5807. Only 4 years later, the mortgagor opted to pursue the remedy of foreclosure.   The Court of appeals determined that the lender could have filed a breach of contract action on the amount due of  $125,271.95 under MCL 600.5807 and/or the foreclosure of the mortgage against plaintiffs’ real property under MCL 600.5803 and neither would have been outside of the applicable statute of limitations.  Accordingly, the foreclosure proceeding was not barred by the statute of limitations.

​The above information provided by PLG attorney, Ellen Fornash, licensed in OH, KY and MI.

Comments are closed.
    PLG BLOG DISCLAIMER
    ​The information contained on this blog shall not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion. The existence of or review and/or use of this blog or any information hereon does not and is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Further, no information on this blog should be construed as investment advice. Independent legal and financial advice should be sought before using any information obtained from this blog. It is important to note that the cases are subject to change with future court decisions or other changes in the law. For the most up-to-date information, please contact Padgett Law Group (“PLG”). PLG shall have no liability whatsoever to any user of this blog or any information contained hereon, for any claim(s) related in any way to the use of this blog.  Users hereby release and hold harmless PLG of and from any and all liability for any claim(s), whether based in contract or in tort, including, but not limited to, claims for lost profits or consequential, exemplary, incidental, indirect, special, or punitive damages arising from or related to their use of the information contained on this blog or their inability to use this blog. This Blog is provided on an "as is" basis without warranties of any kind, either express or implied, including, but not limited to, warranties of title or implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. 
HOME
ABOUT
PRACTICE AREAS
CAREERS
CONTACT US
Picture
Picture

Padgett Law Group and Padgett Law Group EP are D/B/As of Timothy D. Padgett, P.A. Timothy D. Padgett, P.A.'s practice areas include creditors' rights, estate planning and probate, real estate transactions and litigation. Not all practices or services are available in all states in which Timothy D. Padgett, P.A. practices.
PRIVACY STATEMENT | WEBSITE DESIGN BY SQFT.MANAGEMENT
  • HOME
  • ABOUT PADGETT
    • THE DIFFERENCE
    • AFFILIATIONS
  • STATES OF SERVICE
    • FLORIDA
    • GEORGIA
    • TENNESSEE
    • ARKANSAS
    • TEXAS
    • OHIO
    • INDIANA
    • PENNSYLVANIA
    • MISSISSIPPI
    • ALABAMA
  • PRACTICE AREAS
    • NATIONAL
    • FORECLOSURE
    • BANKRUPTCY
    • REGULATORY AFFAIRS
    • LITIGATION
    • REO, TITLE, & EVICTIONS
    • CLOSINGS
    • LOSS MITIGATION
  • FORECLOSURE SALES
  • PLG NEWS
  • CAREERS
  • CLOSINGS
  • CONTACT US
  • HOME
  • ABOUT PADGETT
    • THE DIFFERENCE
    • AFFILIATIONS
  • STATES OF SERVICE
    • FLORIDA
    • GEORGIA
    • TENNESSEE
    • ARKANSAS
    • TEXAS
    • OHIO
    • INDIANA
    • PENNSYLVANIA
    • MISSISSIPPI
    • ALABAMA
  • PRACTICE AREAS
    • NATIONAL
    • FORECLOSURE
    • BANKRUPTCY
    • REGULATORY AFFAIRS
    • LITIGATION
    • REO, TITLE, & EVICTIONS
    • CLOSINGS
    • LOSS MITIGATION
  • FORECLOSURE SALES
  • PLG NEWS
  • CAREERS
  • CLOSINGS
  • CONTACT US