Legal Opinion

Residential Funding Co. v. Saurman

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided April 21, 2011No. Docket Nos. 290248 and 291443PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtShapiro, J.

These consolidated appeals each involve a foreclosure instituted by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), the mortgagee in both cases. The sole question presented is whether MERS is an entity that qualifies under MCL 600.3204(l)(d) to foreclose by advertisement on the subject properties, or if it must instead seek to foreclose by judicial process. We hold that MERS does not meet the requirements of MCL 600.3204(l)(d) and, therefore, may not foreclose by advertisement.

I. BASIC FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In these cases, each defendant purchased property and obtained financing…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. DiBenedetto v. West Shore HospitalMichigan Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Wickens v. Oakwood Healthcare SystemMichigan Supreme Court · 2001
  3. Jackson v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2009
  4. Coblentz v. City of NoviMichigan Supreme Court · 2006
  5. Merscorp., Inc. v. RomaineNew York Court of Appeals · 2006

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Trademark Properties of Michigan, LLC v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'nMichigan Court of Appeals · 2014
  2. Banacki v. OneWest Bank, FSBDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2011
  3. Culhane v. Aurora Loan ServicesDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2011
  4. Talton v. BAC Home Loans Servicing LPDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2012
  5. McCann v. U.S. Bank, N.A.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2012

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API