credit bid rule in Michigan

2016The full credit bid rule has also been invoked in actions to recover for the waste of the mortgagor—see, e.g., Cornelison v Kornbluth, 15 Cal 3d 590; 125 Cal Rptr 557; 542 P2d 981 (1975); see also Janower v FM Sibley Lumber Co, 245 Mich 571, 573-574 ; 222 NW 736 (1929)—and actions claiming fraud by the mortgagor or other parties in inducing the mortgagee to make the loan; see Alliance Mtg Co, 10 Cal 4th 1226; but see Chrysler Capital Realty, Inc v Grella, 942 F2d 160 (CA 2, 1991). 44 Smith, 402 Mich at 128. 45 Id. 46 Id. at 128-129, quoting Whitestone Savings & Loan Ass’n v Allstate Ins Co, 28

2008See Pacific Inland Bank v Ainsworth, 41 Cal App 4th 277, 279-280, 283-284; 48 Cal Rptr 2d 489 (1995) (affirming the application of the full credit bid rule to preclude a lender’s recovery against an appraiser for negligence), applying Cornelison v Kornbluth, 15 Cal 3d 590; 125 Cal Rptr 557; 542 P2d 981 (1975).

2016If this credit bid is equal to the unpaid principal and interest on the mortgage plus the costs of foreclosure, this is known as a ‘full credit bid.’ When a mortgagee makes a full credit bid, the mortgage debt is satisfied, and the mortgage is extinguished.” [Bank of America, NA v First American Title Ins Co, 499 Mich 74, 83 ; 878 NW2d 816 (2016), quoting New Freedom Mtg Co v Globe Mtg Corp, 281 Mich App 63, 68 ; 761 NW2d 832 (2008), citing Alliance Mtg Co v Rothwell, 10 Cal 4th 1226, 1238-1239; 44 Cal Rptr 2d 352; 900 P2d 601 (1995).] If Sturgis’s bid was a “full credit bid,” then the mortgag

2016MCR 2.604(A) provides that “an order or other form of decision adjudicating fewer than all the claims, or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties, does not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties, and the order is subject to revision before entry of final judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.” “As a general matter, courts are permitted to revisit issues they previously decided, even if presented with a motion for reconsideration that offers nothing new to the court.” Hill v City of Warren, 276 Mich App 299, 307

2016MCR 2.604(A) provides that “an order or other form of decision adjudicating fewer than all the claims, or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties, does not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties, and the order is subject to revision before entry of final judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.” “As a general matter, courts are permitted to revisit issues they previously decided, even if presented with a motion for reconsideration that offers nothing new to the court.” Hill v City of Warren, 276 Mich App 299, 307

2016Likewise, we have found no authority exempting an insurer from a claim of conversion or another theory of liability when the plaintiff insured asserts that the insurer converted insurance proceeds by paying them to the wrong party.7 We are not persuaded that ASIC’s lack of familiarity with the full credit bid rule provides a basis for relief, because “[o]ne engaged in business in this state is presumed to know the law as it relates to the operation of that business.” American Way Serv Corp v Comm’r of Ins, 113 Mich App 423, 433 ; 317 NW2d 870 (1982).

2016Likewise, we have found no authority exempting an insurer from a claim of conversion or another theory of liability when the plaintiff insured asserts that the insurer converted insurance proceeds by paying them to the wrong party.7 We are not persuaded that ASIC’s lack of familiarity with the full credit bid rule provides a basis for relief, because “[o]ne engaged in business in this state is presumed to know the law as it relates to the operation of that business.” American Way Serv Corp v Comm’r of Ins, 113 Mich App 423, 433 ; 317 NW2d 870 (1982).

2016See also Bankers Trust Co of Detroit v Rose, 322 Mich 256, 260 ; 33 NW2d 783 (1948) (stating that the purpose of the anti-deficiency statute is “to prevent a mortgagee from obtaining judgment for a deficiency where the mortgagee had obtained by way of foreclosure the actual title to premises which were of greater value than the amount of the debt secured by the mortgage”). 77 MCL 600.3280. 78 See Bloomfield Estates Improvement Ass’n v Birmingham, 479 Mich 206, 212 ; 737 NW2d 670 (2007) (recognizing that the freedom of contract is deeply entrenched in the common law and the right to make and en

2016See also Bankers Trust Co of Detroit v Rose, 322 Mich 256, 260 ; 33 NW2d 783 (1948) (stating that the purpose of the anti-deficiency statute is “to prevent a mortgagee from obtaining judgment for a deficiency where the mortgagee had obtained by way of foreclosure the actual title to premises which were of greater value than the amount of the debt secured by the mortgage”). 77 MCL 600.3280. 78 See Bloomfield Estates Improvement Ass’n v Birmingham, 479 Mich 206, 212 ; 737 NW2d 670 (2007) (recognizing that the freedom of contract is deeply entrenched in the common law and the right to make and en

2016J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), citing In re King Street Investments, 219 BR 848 . 80 Miller-Davis, 495 Mich at 178 . 81 This is a matter of first impression, in Michigan.

2008The elements of a negligence claim are “duty, breach of that duty, causation, and damages.” Brown, supra at 552 .

2008Respect for the freedom to contract entails that we enforce only those obligations actually assented to by the parties. [Wilkie v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 469 Mich 41, 62-63 ; 664 NW2d 776 (2003) (citations omitted).] Nevertheless, the full credit bid rule overrides the indemnity provision because a mortgagee purchases *77 subject to the condition of the property, and a lender who makes a full credit bid stands “in the same position as any other purchaser.” Pulleyblank, supra at 694 , and see Janower, supra at 573 , and Pulleyblank, supra at 696 .

2008Respect for the freedom to contract entails that we enforce only those obligations actually assented to by the parties. [Wilkie v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 469 Mich 41, 62-63 ; 664 NW2d 776 (2003) (citations omitted).] Nevertheless, the full credit bid rule overrides the indemnity provision because a mortgagee purchases *77 subject to the condition of the property, and a lender who makes a full credit bid stands “in the same position as any other purchaser.” Pulleyblank, supra at 694 , and see Janower, supra at 573 , and Pulleyblank, supra at 696 .

2008Respect for the freedom to contract entails that we enforce only those obligations actually assented to by the parties. [Wilkie v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 469 Mich 41, 62-63 ; 664 NW2d 776 (2003) (citations omitted).] Nevertheless, the full credit bid rule overrides the indemnity provision because a mortgagee purchases *77 subject to the condition of the property, and a lender who makes a full credit bid stands “in the same position as any other purchaser.” Pulleyblank, supra at 694 , and see Janower, supra at 573 , and Pulleyblank, supra at 696 .

2008Respect for the freedom to contract entails that we enforce only those obligations actually assented to by the parties. [Wilkie v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 469 Mich 41, 62-63 ; 664 NW2d 776 (2003) (citations omitted).] Nevertheless, the full credit bid rule overrides the indemnity provision because a mortgagee purchases *77 subject to the condition of the property, and a lender who makes a full credit bid stands “in the same position as any other purchaser.” Pulleyblank, supra at 694 , and see Janower, supra at 573 , and Pulleyblank, supra at 696 .