Advertisement

June 19, 2013

Michigan Supreme Court to review Kim v JP Morgan Chase

On January 12, 2012, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a unanimous decision in Kim v JP Morgan Chase Bank, 295 Mich App 200 (2012), in which it ruled that JP Morgan Chase Bank ("Chase") was not authorized to proceed with a sheriff's sale under Michigan's foreclosure by advertisement statute (MCL 600.3201, et. seq.) because Chase had not recorded its mortgage interest before the sheriff's sale occurred. See Varnum's February 27, 2012, Client Advisory.

Chase timely sought leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, and on May 9, 2012, the Court granted Chase's application. The Court ordered that its review of the case will be limited to the issues of: (i) whether Chase acquired the disputed loan by operation of law and, if so, whether MCL 600.3204(3) applies to acquisition of a mortgage by operation of law, and (ii) if the foreclosure procedures were flawed, whether the foreclosure is void ab initio or voidable.

The Court invited briefs amicus curiae briefs from the Michigan Association of Bankers, the Real Property Section of the State Bar of Michigan, and the Consumer Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan. Other interested parties will need to apply to the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.

© 2013 Varnum LLP

About the Author

Partner

Mark is member of the Trial Practice Group. His practice focuses on commercial, construction, real estate and land use litigation.

616-336-6502

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.