Robert Miehlke v. Bayview Condominium Association, 330521

Linden Court Corp granted a first mortgage to Community Shores Bank (CSB) and later a junior mortgage to Bayview Condominium Association; both mortgages were recorded.
Linden defaulted on the first mortgage; CSB foreclosed by advertisement, purchased at sheriff’s sale, and received a sheriff’s deed on Oct. 20, 2011, extinguishing Bayview’s junior interest.
Nearly two years later CSB recorded an affidavit of scrivener’s error to correct omitted calls in the sheriff’s deed legal description; CSB then entered a sale contract with plaintiffs and recorded a document stating it “rescinds the Sheriff’s Sale.”
Linden’s representative executed a warranty deed to plaintiffs; plaintiffs sought declaratory relief to quiet title after Bayview claimed CSB’s recorded rescission revived Bayview’s mortgage.
The trial court granted summary disposition for plaintiffs, finding the foreclosure notice substantially conformed to the mortgage description, Bayview suffered no prejudice, the foreclosure was valid and not voidable, and CSB’s later rescission/affidavit could not revive extinguished interests.
On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the notice met statutory requirements (or any defect caused no prejudice), the sale extinguished junior interests, and there was no evidence Linden and CSB agreed to extend the redemption period.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the foreclosure notice’s defective legal description rendered the sale invalid	Miehlke: Notice substantially conformed to mortgage; foreclosure valid	Bayview: Missing calls made notice defective and prejudiced Bayview	Held: Notice substantially conformed; any defect caused no prejudice; foreclosure valid
Whether a valid foreclosure sale can be rescinded by an affidavit filed after redemption expired	Miehlke: A valid sale cannot be undone by post-redemption affidavit	Bayview: CSB’s recorded rescission/affidavit effectively extended redemption or revived junior interests	Held: Post-redemption affidavit/rescission ineffective to revive extinguished mortgages
Whether Linden and CSB agreed to extend the statutory redemption period	Miehlke: No evidence of any agreement to extend redemption	Bayview: Rescission document functioned as an extension/agreement	Held: No signed agreement or testimony showing extension; no extension occurred
Whether Bayview suffered prejudice from the notice defect sufficient to set aside the sale	Miehlke: Bayview had actual notice and attended sale; no harm shown	Bayview: Omitted calls could have affected ability to protect interest	Held: Bayview had actual notice and would not have acted differently; no prejudice shown

Trademark Prop of Mich, LLC v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 308 Mich App 132 (treats valid foreclosure sale as extinguishing junior interests)
Klein v. H.P. Pelzer Auto Sys., Inc., 306 Mich App 67 (summary disposition C(10) standard)
Hastings Mut. Ins. Co. v. Safety King, Inc., 286 Mich App 287 (view evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
West v. Gen. Motors Corp., 469 Mich 177 (definition of genuine issue of material fact)
Sweet Air Inv., Inc. v. Kenney, 275 Mich App 492 (defect in foreclosure notice renders sale voidable, not void)
Kim v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 493 Mich 98 (party seeking to set aside sale must show prejudice)
Kubicki v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., 292 Mich App 287 (courts should not set aside foreclosure absent strong fraud or irregularity)
Provident Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Vinton Co., 282 Mich 84 (notice must describe property with reasonable certainty)