Washtenaw Circuit Court LC No. 16-000990-CB
Before: Meter, P.J., and Jansen and M. J. Kelly, JJ.
Packard Square, LLC (Packard Square), appeals as of right a
judgment of foreclosure in this action filed by plaintiff,
Can IV Packard Square, LLC (Can IV), to foreclose a mortgage
on a mixed-use commercial development construction project
with respect to which Packard Square was the borrower and Can
IV was the lender. Although Packard Square challenges the
merits of the trial court's decision, we are constrained
to dismiss this appeal as moot because Packard Square failed
to redeem the property as provided in MCL 600.3140.
October 2016, Can IV filed suit against Packard Square,
alleging that Packard Square was in default of a loan
agreement it had with Can IV and seeking a judicial
foreclosure on a mortgage securing the loan. Shortly after
Can IV filed its claim, on a motion from Can IV, the trial
court appointed a receiver for the property. The case
proceeded with discovery, and Can IV eventually moved for
summary disposition, which the trial court granted on
September 20, 2018. The court entered a judgment of
foreclosure authorizing the sale of the property at a
foreclosure sale was scheduled for November 15, 2018. On
October 15, 2018, Packard Square filed a motion to stay the
foreclosure sale and the enforcement of the foreclosure
judgement entered against it. Packard Square asserted that
there was good cause to grant a a stay because the trial
court erred by granting summary disposition in Can IV's
favor and entering a judgment of foreclosure. Packard Square
also contended that a stay was warranted because the trial
court failed to make any specific ruling on Packard
Square's affirmative defenses and its counterclaims.
Finally, Packard Square asserted that the failure to stay the
proceedings "pending reconsideration and appeal"
would result in "irreparable harm which will be caused
should the project be sold at a Sheriff's Sale prior a
final ruling . . . ." The trial court denied the motion
on October 16, 2018.
on November 1, 2018, Packard Square filed a claim of appeal
in this Court, raising challenges to the trial court's
decision. On November 14, 2018-one day before the property
was to be sold at the sheriff's sale-Packard Square filed
a motion in this Court to stay the judicial foreclosure sale.
Packard Square, however, did not file a motion for immediate
consideration,  and the motion for a stay was denied on
November 30, 2018.
December 18, 2018, Packard Square filed a motion in this
Court to stay the effect of MCL 600.3140 during the
pendency of its appeal or, alternatively, to expedite its
appeal. Packard Square also filed a motion for immediate
consideration. Packard Square, however, failed to cure
defects with its December 18, 2018 motion, so this Court
entered an order striking the motion.
January 15, 2019, Packard Square filed a motion to expedite
its appeal, arguing that if a decision by this Court was not
issued before May 15, 2019, the issues it was raising on
appeal would "in essence, become moot." On January
22, 2019, this Court granted Packard Square's motion to
expedite its appeal.
10, 2019, Packard Square filed a motion to stay transfer of
the property. Packard Square noted that the statutory
redemption period provided by MCL 600.3140 was set to expire
on May 15, 2019, and it argued that after the redemption
period expired Can IV would be free to transfer title of the
property to any third party, which would result in material
prejudice to Packard Square. The motion, however, was
stricken by this Court because Packard Square failed to cure
defects with it.
EXPIRATION OF REDEMPTION PERIOD
STANDARD OF REVIEW
supplemental brief, Can IV argues that the issues raised by
Packard Square on appeal are moot because the six-month
redemption period in MCL 600.3140 expired on May 15, 2019. In
response, Packard Square contends that it has standing to
challenge the foreclosure proceedings. "The
applicability of a legal doctrine, such as mootness, is a
question of law which this Court reviews de novo. TM v
MZ, 501 Mich. 312, 315; 916 N.W.2d 473 (2018) (quotation
marks, alterations, and citation omitted). And, because
"Michigan Courts exist to decide actual cases and
controversies," "[t]he question of mootness is a
threshold issue that a court must address before it reaches
the substantive issues of a case." In re
Tchakarova, ____Mich App___, ____;___ N.W.2d___ (2019)
(Docket No. 345739); slip op at 3. "[A]s a general rule,
this Court will not entertain moot issues or decide moot
cases." East Grand Rapids Sch Dist v Kent Co Tax
Allocation Bd, 415 Mich. 381, 390; 330 N.W.2d 7 (1982).
"Whether a party has standing is a question of law
subject to review de ...