Bryan v. JPMorgan Chase Bank
304 Mich. App. 708
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Foreclosure by advertisement on a Bloomfield Hills mortgage; sheriff sale held Jan 26, 2010; JPMorgan Chase purchased the property; sheriff's deed recorded Feb 2, 2010; redemption period expired Jun 26, 2010; Judgment of Possession Aug 11, 2010; plaintiff pursued bankruptcy petitions (dismissed) and later a discharge in 2011; eviction order and appeal activity followed; plaintiff filed Jan 31, 2012 suit to quiet title alleging misstatement of ownership and improper servicing; plaintiff claimed JPMorgan Chase lacked authority/recording as required under MCL 600.3204(1)(d) and (3) and that sheriff sale was void ab initio for failure to record before sale.
- Defendant foreclosed by advertisement; redemption expired; plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the sale; prior district court eviction decision appealed; Kim v JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA issued after prior events; plaintiff sought relief based on alleged irregularities in recording and argued res judicata/collateral estoppel did not apply.
- Trial court granted summary disposition for defendant; found res judicata and collateral estoppel barred the suit; held plaintiff had no standing post-redemption; noted Kim’s retroactivity issue; rejected plaintiff’s invocation of Kim; concluded forgone standing and lack of prejudice warranted dismissal; appeal followed.
- Plaintiff asserted standing despite expiration of redemption; argued irregularity in recording as basis to void sale; defendant contended res judicata/collateral estoppel and lack of standing foreclose action.
- Court affirmed summary disposition for defendant, ruling no reversible error.
- As discussed later in this opinion, Kim was subsequently reversed in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing after redemption period | Bryan retained standing due to alleged irregularity | Chase had no standing once redemption expired | Plaintiff lacked standing after redemption period |
| Res judicata and collateral estoppel | Claims not barred by prior eviction appeal | Doctrine precludes relitigation | Res judicata/collateral estoppel barred action |
| Effect of Kim on res judicata and standing | Kim retroactively exempted her from res judicata | Kim does not apply retroactively to bar preexisting judgments | Kim retroactivity not favorable; prejudice required under Kim; not shown |
| Prejudice from alleged recording irregularity | Failure to record mortgage interest prejudiced plaintiff | No showing of prejudice absent timely redemption | Prejudice not proven; sale valid absent entitlement to relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Kim v JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, 493 Mich 98 (2012) (foreclosure defects are voidable, not void ab initio; need prejudice to set aside sale)
- Dart v Dart, 460 Mich 573 (1999) (finality for res judicata; final judgments bar subsequent actions arising from same transaction)
- Begin v Mich Bell Tel Co, 284 Mich App 581 (2009) (res judicata purpose and finality; broad application in Michigan)
- Leahy v Orion Twp, 269 Mich App 527 (2006) (collateral estoppel: issue preclusion when full opportunity to litigate)
- Davenport v HSBC Bank USA, 275 Mich App 344 (2007) (foreclosure lacking statutory authority may be void ab initio; but Kim later restricted)