Archive

Posts Tagged ‘property rights’

Real Estate Law Update: Investors Purchasing at Foreclosure – Take Care in Handling Personal Property Left at the Property.

May 11, 2017 2 comments

Today I am posting about a Court of Appeals case decided on April 25, 2017  – Suzor v Kamlay 2016-07-22 13.10.20

Foreclosed Property = high risk/high reward.

Real estate investors are always wary of the many pitfalls when purchasing property at foreclosure.

I’ve previously posted on problems when someone is still occupying the Property after foreclosure.

The latest case talks about what happens if the holdover is no longer in the property – but has left personal belongings.

Should you take matters into your own hands and remove the stuff?

What liability does a purchaser have after foreclosure and the expiration of redemption if they remove any personal belongings?

FACTS:

  • Plaintiffs’ home was foreclosed on.
  • The property was sold at a sheriff’s sale.
  • Plaintiffs did not redeem the property.
  • Purchaser sued  and was given a judgment of possession and an order of eviction.
  • Purchaser hired defendant to secure and clean the property and remove any remaining personal property—a process commonly referred to as a “trash out.
  • Plaintiffs brought a claim for conversion, arguing that their attempts to get defendant to return the items of personal property he removed from the foreclosed property were to no avail
  • Defendant argued – I have immunity under the Anti-Lockout Statute, since I was operating pursuant to a Court Order.
  • Trial Court agreed.

 

Anti-Lockout Statute – MCL 600.2918 

Any landlord who has gone through the process of evicting a tenant knows that, in the residential leasing context, there are heightened duties of landlords, and heightened rights of tenants.  Tenants have the right not to have their possessory interest in the property interfered with, without the proper court procedure being complied with (Summary Proceeding Action in District Court).

 

Here, Defendant claimed he was shielded from liability under MCl 600.2918(3)(a) which provides

that “[a]n owner’s actions do not unlawfully interfere with a possessory interest if . . . [t]he owner acts pursuant to court order.” Id. page 2.

The Court of Appeals held though that such immunity only shields from liability if the parties have a landlord-tenant relationship.

“However, the parties to this case did not have a landlord-tenant relationship.”

Also, The Court noted that

“While an owner has the right to lawfully enter the premises and remove belongings left therein pursuant to court order, the owner does not have title over the property removed.” Id. page 4.

 

The Court of Appeals would have presumably reversed on this point, but held that the trial court essentially “got it right, but for the wrong reasons.”   The Plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence to prove their case – that the defendant when he removed the personal property converted them by failing to allow the Plaintiffs to recover the property, or otherwise “that a bailment existed”. Id.  page 4.

 

Conclusion:

A purchaser at foreclosure should be careful in handling the personal property leftover.

 

As the Court of Appeals noted – the purchaser is not shielded from liability under the Anti-Lockout Statute, since there is no landlord-tenant relationship.

Also, the owner may have purchased title to the real estate, but not to the personal property.

 

To avoid any unfounded claims by holdovers, it always makes sense after purchasing property at foreclosure, when there are any occupants present, to go through the lawful channels for a court proceeding to extinguish any possessory rights and to make sure any personal belongings are handled appropriately.

You don’t want to expose yourself to undue liability.

 

Questions? Comments?

E-mail: Jeshua@dwlawpc.com

http://www.dwlawpc.com

Twitter: @JeshuaTLauka

Real Estate Law Update: Recently Enacted Michigan Legislation Abolishes Dower Right.

January 10, 2017 Leave a comment

 

A few days ago Governor Snyder signed into law 21 Bills, including Senate Bills 588 and 560 that abolish a surviving wife’s dower right.

The measures are now Public Acts 489 and 490 of 2016.

This is good news since dower right is a relic of the past, sometimes referred to as an “inchoate dower interest” (You can look it up in Black’s Law Dictionary if you are interested.)

I have previously written about the consequences for failing to account for a wife’s dower right in real estate transactions. It appears that there won’t be any Michigan case law developing over this issue in the years to come.

Lawyers will no longer be including in transferring deeds from marital couples the magic words “and his wife for purposes of dower only.”  Something to get used to.

 

e-mail: Jeshua@dwlawpc.com

http://www.dwlawpc.com

Twitter: @JeshuaTLauka