In Statebridge Company, LLC v Fells, an unpublished Michigan Court of Appeals opinion, the Defendant defaulted on his residential note and mortgage and the mortgagee foreclosed. A third party purchased at the sale for substantially less than was owed under the note. The mortgagee sold the note to Plaintiff, who sued for a deficiency judgment. Although Defendant did not dispute the default or the amount of the deficiency, he defended on the basis that MCL 600.3280 precludes a deficiency judgment. The trial court held that MCL 600.3280 did not apply, but reduced the amount of the deficiency based upon the court’s view of the fair market value of the property at the time of the sale. Defndant appealed.
MCL 600.3280 provides two conditions for a defense to a deficiency judgment to apply: 1), the mortgagee or holder of the note must become the purchaser at the sale, and 2) the mortgagee or holder of the note must have brought the action for the deficiency. Since there as no evidence in the record that the third party purchaser was agent of the mortgagee or Plaintiff’s assignors, MCL 600.3280 was inapplicable.
Plaintiff requested in its brief that the court vacate the judgment and remand to the trial court for a judgment for the full amount of the deficiency; however, because Plaintiff had not cross-appealed, it was not entitled to relief.