In this case, there is no dispute that plaintiffs had notice of the foreclosure by advertisement, MCL 600.3201, and that plaintiffs failed to redeem the property during the redemption period. After the redemption period expired without the property’s being redeemed, title vested in the mortgage company.
Accordingly, plaintiffs no longer held any legal or equitable rights in the property after the redemption period expired.
Because plaintiffs failed to vacate the house at the conclusion of the redemption period, the mortgage company initiated an eviction action in the district court under the summary proceedings act, MCL 600.5701.
Pursuant to a consent judgment of possession, plaintiffs agreed that the mortgage company could apply for an order of eviction if plaintiffs failed to vacate the premises by November 16, 2014. Plaintiffs moved out of the home by that date, but they left personal property behind.
Thereafter, defendants purchased the property from the mortgage company, and they acquired fee simple title to the house.
Even though plaintiffs had lost their rights in the real estate, defendants initially gave plaintiffs an opportunity to retrieve their personal property. Nonetheless, plaintiff neither showed up to an agreed-to meeting with defendant, nor did she contact defendant beforehand to let him know that she would not make it.
When real property has been vacated and physical assets are left behind or abandoned on the property, one who thereafter properly enters the property and maintains possession is not liable in an action for claim and delivery under MCL 600.2920.
The court held that the interest or right plaintiffs had in the personal property did not survive expiration of the redemption period, entry of the possession judgment, plaintiffs’ subsequent failure to remove the property by the date to vacate, at which time they left the house unlocked and vulnerable to theft, and plaintiffs’ additional failure later to appear at the scheduled December meeting without a timely excuse.
The essential elements of abandonment are an intention to relinquish the property and acts putting that intention into effect. Considering this series of events and failures, the court concluded that as a matter of law, plaintiffs abandoned the personal property they left behind.
Whether you are trying to save your home from foreclosure or your home loan is upside down and you are unsure of what you should do, you can find the sound advice and helpful support you require at Aldrich Legal Services in Plymouth, Michigan. We have helped many people find solutions to the real estate issues that you now face. Contact us today to schedule a free consultation and learn more about options that may be available to you.
