In SJT Properies LLC v Blaker, an unpublished Michigan Court of Appeals opinion, the original owner of the property granted a mortgage on the property. The mortgage was assigned several times; the final assignee, Bayview Loan Servicing, foreclosed the mortgage by advertisement. SJT Properties purchased at the foreclosure sale. The original owner quit claimed the property to Blaker after the sale. Blaker requested redemption figures from SJT, which claimed that Blaker was responsible not only for the amount needed to redeem from the sheriff’s sale but also for the alleged remaining amount needed to discharge the mortgagee. Rather than tendering to SJT, Blaker tendered to the register of deeds and obtained a redemption receipt from the register of deeds. SJT then sued Blaker claiming that Blaker was liable for the claimed deficiency between the amount of the sale price and the balance allegedly remaining due on the mortgage. Blaker filed a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) on the basis that the complaint failed to state a cause of action against him. The trial court granted the motion, and SJT appealed
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. The mortgage and the underlying note were never assigned to SJT and thus it had no standing to attempt to collect any deficiency. Purchase at a foreclosure sale is not an assignment of the mortgage; indeed, foreclosure extinguishes the mortgage. Also, the sheriff’s deed became void when Blaker redeemed from the sale.
SJT also argued that the deficiency statute, MCL 600.3280. However, for that statute to apply, the mortgagee must take title to the property. SJT’s argument failed for two reasons: one, it was not the mortgagee, and two it never took title to the property because Blaker redeemed.