Legal Opinion
Mazur v. Young
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided November 16, 2007No. 06-1525PublishedCited by 51 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMoore, J., joined by Daughtrey, J.,
SHADUR, D.J. (pp. 1023-28), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.
OPINION
KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge.
In this diversity action we are asked to determine whether, under Michigan law, the guarantor of a land contract is liable to the seller for any deficiency once the seller has elected forfeiture as his remedy. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that a judgment for possession after forfeiture extinguishes the land contract, leaving no legal basis to pursue further claims against the guarantor. Therefore, in this case, the guarantor is not liable, and we affirm the district…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Stephen B. Himmel v. Ford Motor CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2004
- Gruskin v. FisherMichigan Supreme Court · 1979
- Bedford v. KelleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1913
- Bandit Industries, Inc. v. Hobbs International, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 2001
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by51 opinions
- Bennett v. MIS CORP.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2010
- Hartman v. Great Seneca Financial Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2009
- Medical Mut. of Ohio v. K. AMALIA ENTERPRISES INC.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2008
- Carlo Croce v. New York Times Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019
- McKinney v. Bayer Corp.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2010
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.