Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 600 / Act 236 of 1961
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3204 (2026)

Foreclosure by advertisement; circumstances; installments as separate and independent mortgage; redemption; chain of title.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961


Act 236 of 1961


600.3204 Foreclosure by advertisement; circumstances; installments as separate and independent mortgage; redemption; chain of title.

Sec. 3204.

    (1) A party may foreclose a mortgage by advertisement if all of the following circumstances exist:

    (a) A default in a condition of the mortgage has occurred, by which the power to sell became operative.

    (b) An action or proceeding has not been instituted, at law, to recover the debt secured by the mortgage or any part of the mortgage or, if an action or proceeding has been instituted, either the action or proceeding has been discontinued or an execution on a judgment rendered in the action or proceeding has been returned unsatisfied, in whole or in part. For purposes of this subdivision, neither of the following is an action or proceeding to recover the debt:

    (i) An action or proceeding for the appointment of a receiver.

    (ii) An action or proceeding under the Michigan uniform assignment of rents act to enforce an assignment of rents.

    (c) The mortgage containing the power of sale has been properly recorded.

    (d) The party foreclosing the mortgage is either the owner of the indebtedness or of an interest in the indebtedness secured by the mortgage or the servicing agent of the mortgage.

    (2) If a mortgage is given to secure the payment of money by installments, each of the installments mentioned in the mortgage after the first must be treated as a separate and independent mortgage. The mortgage for each of the installments may be foreclosed in the same manner and with the same effect as if a separate mortgage were given for each subsequent installment. A redemption of a sale by the mortgagor has the same effect as if the sale for the installment had been made upon an independent prior mortgage.

    (3) If the party foreclosing a mortgage by advertisement is not the original mortgagee, a record chain of title must exist before the date of sale under section 3216 evidencing the assignment of the mortgage to the party foreclosing the mortgage.

    

    

History: 1961, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963 ;-- Am. 1994, Act 397, Imd. Eff. Dec. 29, 1994 ;-- Am. 2004, Act 186, Imd. Eff. July 1, 2004 ;-- Am. 2009, Act 29, Eff. July 5, 2009 ;-- Am. 2011, Act 72, Imd. Eff. July 1, 2011 ;-- Am. 2011, Act 301, Imd. Eff. Dec. 22, 2011 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 521, Imd. Eff. Dec. 28, 2012 ;-- Am. 2013, Act 103, Imd. Eff. July 3, 2013 ;-- Am. 2014, Act 125, Eff. June 19, 2014 ;-- Am. 2018, Act 15, Eff. May 7, 2018 ;-- Am. 2022, Act 116, Eff. Sept. 22, 2022

Compiler's Notes:

    Enacting section 1 of Act 301 of 2011 provides:

    "Enacting section 1. Sections 3204(4), 3205, and 3212 of the revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.3204, 600.3205, and 600.3212, as amended by this amendatory act, and section 3278 of the revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, as added by this amendatory act, apply to foreclosure proceedings in which the first notice under section 3205a of the revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.3205a, is mailed to the mortgagor on or after February 1, 2012."

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 165 cases (21 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: Kim v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, Na, 825 N.W.2d 329 (Mich. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kim v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, Na, 825 N.W.2d 329 (Mich. 2012). · cites it 86× “In an opinion by Justice MARILYN KELLY, joined by Justices CAVANAGH, MARKMAN, and HATHAWAY, the Supreme Court held: When a subsequent mortgagee acquires an interest in a mortgage through a voluntary purchase agreement with the FDIC, the mortgage has not been acquired by…”
Talton v. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, 839 F. Supp. 2d 896 (E.D. Mich. 2012). · cites it 32× “The Michigan Supreme Court, however, recently reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and held that MERS, acting as nominee of the lender, had a security lien on the property and was authorized to foreclose by advertisement.”
Residential Funding Co. v. Saurman, 292 Mich. App. 321 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 20× “Jackson , a Minnesota case, is inapplicable because it interpreted a statute that is substantially different from MCL 600.3204. The statute at issue in Jackson specifically permits foreclosure by advertisement if “a mortgage is granted to a mortgagee as nominee or agent for a…”
Bryan v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 848 N.W.2d 482 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 6× “In this regard, to set aside the foreclosure sale, plaintiffs must show that they were prejudiced by defendant’s failure to comply with MCL 600.3204. To demonstrate such prejudice, they must show that they would have been in a better position to preserve their interest in the…”
McCann v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 873 F. Supp. 2d 823 (E.D. Mich. 2012). · cites it 21× “Judge Binder elaborates: Although a Michigan Court of Appeals decision held that MERS, as nominee *830 for the lender, could not meet the requirements of Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3204 because it did not have any interest in the promissory note, the Michigan Supreme Court summarily…”
Keyes v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 921 F. Supp. 2d 749 (E.D. Mich. 2013). · cites it 23× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3204 (1). “If the party foreclosing a mortgage by advertise *755 ment is not the original mortgagee, a record chain of title shall exist prior to the date of sale under section 8216 evidencing the assignment of the mortgage to the party foreclosing the…”
Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Ass'n v. Kelley, 858 N.W.2d 69 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 13× “” In this case, the only prejudice defendants allege is that plaintiff violated their due process rights.”
Salvatore Munaco v. Bank of Am., 513 F. App'x 508 (6th Cir. 2013). · cites it 17× “The district court refused to consider Plaintiffs argument, raised for the first time in his response brief, that the foreclosure by advertisement was invalid under Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 600.3204 , because BNYM did not record the mortgage until after the foreclosure proceeding…”
Greenville Lafayette, LLC v. Elgin State Bank, 818 N.W.2d 460 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 8× “Because we conclude that the plain language of MCL 600.3204 bars defendant’s foreclosure action, we reverse.”
Conlin v. Mortg. Elec. Reg. Sys., Inc., 714 F.3d 355 (6th Cir. 2013). · cites it 3× “31, 2013) (citing Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3204 and Senters v.”
Davenport v. HSBC BANK USA, 739 N.W.2d 383 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “3204 provides in pertinent part: (1) A party may foreclose a mortgage by advertisement if all of the following circumstances exist: (a) A default in a condition of the mortgage has occurred, by which the power to sell became operative. (d) The party foreclosing the mortgage is…”
Livonia Props. Holdings, LLC v. 12840-12976 Farmington Road Holdings, LLC, 399 F. App'x 97 (6th Cir. 2010). · cites it 3× “Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 600.3204 . Livonia contested the foreclosure in Michigan state court, and Farming-ton removed the matter to federal court.”
Show all 165 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3204(1) — 12 cases
Kim v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, Na, 825 N.W.2d 329 (Mich. 2012). “In an opinion by Justice MARILYN KELLY, joined by Justices CAVANAGH, MARKMAN, and HATHAWAY, the Supreme Court held: When a subsequent mortgagee acquires an interest in a mortgage through a voluntary purchase agreement with the FDIC, the mortgage has not been acquired by…”
Livonia Prop. Holdings, L.L.C. v. 12840-12976 Farmington Road Holdings, L.L.C., 717 F. Supp. 2d 724 (E.D. Mich. 2010).
Talton v. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, 839 F. Supp. 2d 896 (E.D. Mich. 2012). “The Michigan Supreme Court, however, recently reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and held that MERS, acting as nominee of the lender, had a security lien on the property and was authorized to foreclose by advertisement.”
Greenville Lafayette, LLC v. Elgin State Bank, 818 N.W.2d 460 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “Because we conclude that the plain language of MCL 600.3204 bars defendant’s foreclosure action, we reverse.”
Church & Church, Inc. v. A-1 Carpentry, 766 N.W.2d 30 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3204(1)(a) — 6 cases
Sallie v. Fifth Third Bank, 824 N.W.2d 238 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
Jp Morgan Chase Bank v. Kays Zair (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
Jp Morgan Chase Bank v. Kays Zair (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
Sjt Props. LLC v. William Blaker (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
Mary Frye v. Golfpointe Vill. Condos. at Plumbrook (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3204(1)(b) — 3 cases
Linda Layton v. Volt Participation Trust 2011-Npl2 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
Citizens Bank v. Randie K Black (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
George Dernis v. Amos Fin. LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3204(1)(c) — 3 cases
Kim v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, Na, 825 N.W.2d 329 (Mich. 2012). “In an opinion by Justice MARILYN KELLY, joined by Justices CAVANAGH, MARKMAN, and HATHAWAY, the Supreme Court held: When a subsequent mortgagee acquires an interest in a mortgage through a voluntary purchase agreement with the FDIC, the mortgage has not been acquired by…”
Todd Newman v. Real Time Resolutions Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
Todd Newman v. Real Time Resolutions Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3204(1)(d) — 17 cases
Kim v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, Na, 825 N.W.2d 329 (Mich. 2012). “In an opinion by Justice MARILYN KELLY, joined by Justices CAVANAGH, MARKMAN, and HATHAWAY, the Supreme Court held: When a subsequent mortgagee acquires an interest in a mortgage through a voluntary purchase agreement with the FDIC, the mortgage has not been acquired by…”
Collins v. Wickersham, 862 F. Supp. 2d 649 (E.D. Mich. 2012).
Richard v. Schneiderman & Sherman, PC, 818 N.W.2d 334 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
Berry v. Main Street Bank, 977 F. Supp. 2d 766 (E.D. Mich. 2013).
Francis Katulski v. Cpca Trust I (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3204(3) — 33 cases
Kim v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, Na, 825 N.W.2d 329 (Mich. 2012). “In an opinion by Justice MARILYN KELLY, joined by Justices CAVANAGH, MARKMAN, and HATHAWAY, the Supreme Court held: When a subsequent mortgagee acquires an interest in a mortgage through a voluntary purchase agreement with the FDIC, the mortgage has not been acquired by…”
Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Ass'n v. Kelley, 858 N.W.2d 69 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “” In this case, the only prejudice defendants allege is that plaintiff violated their due process rights.”
Bryan v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 848 N.W.2d 482 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “In this regard, to set aside the foreclosure sale, plaintiffs must show that they were prejudiced by defendant’s failure to comply with MCL 600.3204. To demonstrate such prejudice, they must show that they would have been in a better position to preserve their interest in the…”
Keyes v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 921 F. Supp. 2d 749 (E.D. Mich. 2013). “Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3204 (1). “If the party foreclosing a mortgage by advertise *755 ment is not the original mortgagee, a record chain of title shall exist prior to the date of sale under section 8216 evidencing the assignment of the mortgage to the party foreclosing the…”
Kim v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, 813 N.W.2d 778 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3204(4) — 13 cases
Talton v. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, 839 F. Supp. 2d 896 (E.D. Mich. 2012). “The Michigan Supreme Court, however, recently reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and held that MERS, acting as nominee of the lender, had a security lien on the property and was authorized to foreclose by advertisement.”
Degen v. Oliveto, 264 N.W.2d 64 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).
Jp Morgan Chase Nat'l Ass'n v. Michael R Teany (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
Frederick Franzel Jr v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
Samuel L Hill Jr v. US Bank Na (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3204(4)(a) — 7 cases
Lopez v. Bank of Am., N.A., 920 F. Supp. 2d 798 (W.D. Mich. 2013).
Jp Morgan Chase Nat'l Ass'n v. Michael R Teany (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
Morgan Stanley Mortg. Home Loan Trust v. Michael J Liebetreu (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
Francis Katulski v. Cpca Trust I (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
James H Diluigi v. Rbs Citizens Na (Mich. 2015).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3204(4)(d) — 2 cases
Samuel L Hill Jr v. US Bank Na (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
Samuel L Hill Jr v. US Bank Na (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3204(4)(e) — 1 case
Morgan Stanley Mortg. Home Loan Trust v. Michael J Liebetreu (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3204(4)(f) — 1 case
Terees Williams v. Fannie Mae (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3204(4)(g) — 2 cases
Talton v. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, 839 F. Supp. 2d 896 (E.D. Mich. 2012). “The Michigan Supreme Court, however, recently reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and held that MERS, acting as nominee of the lender, had a security lien on the property and was authorized to foreclose by advertisement.”
Frederick Franzel Jr v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3204(I)(a) — 1 case
Kostopoulos v. Onewest Bank, FSB, 60 F. Supp. 3d 804 (E.D. Mich. 2014).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3204(b)(1) — 1 case
Linda Layton v. Volt Participation Trust 2011-Npl2 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3204(d) — 2 cases
Samuel L Hill Jr v. US Bank Na (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
Samuel L Hill Jr v. US Bank Na (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3204(l)(a) — 1 case
John McLaughlin v. Chase Home Fin. LLC, 519 F. App'x 904 (6th Cir. 2013).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3204(l)(b) — 2 cases
Greenville Lafayette, LLC v. Elgin State Bank, 818 N.W.2d 460 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “Because we conclude that the plain language of MCL 600.3204 bars defendant’s foreclosure action, we reverse.”
Sallie v. Fifth Third Bank, 824 N.W.2d 238 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3204(l)(d) — 14 cases
Residential Funding Co. v. Saurman, 292 Mich. App. 321 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “Jackson , a Minnesota case, is inapplicable because it interpreted a statute that is substantially different from MCL 600.3204. The statute at issue in Jackson specifically permits foreclosure by advertisement if “a mortgage is granted to a mortgagee as nominee or agent for a…”
Talton v. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, 839 F. Supp. 2d 896 (E.D. Mich. 2012). “The Michigan Supreme Court, however, recently reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and held that MERS, acting as nominee of the lender, had a security lien on the property and was authorized to foreclose by advertisement.”
Keyes v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 921 F. Supp. 2d 749 (E.D. Mich. 2013). “Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3204 (1). “If the party foreclosing a mortgage by advertise *755 ment is not the original mortgagee, a record chain of title shall exist prior to the date of sale under section 8216 evidencing the assignment of the mortgage to the party foreclosing the…”
Davenport v. HSBC BANK USA, 739 N.W.2d 383 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “3204 provides in pertinent part: (1) A party may foreclose a mortgage by advertisement if all of the following circumstances exist: (a) A default in a condition of the mortgage has occurred, by which the power to sell became operative. (d) The party foreclosing the mortgage is…”
Bryan v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 848 N.W.2d 482 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “In this regard, to set aside the foreclosure sale, plaintiffs must show that they were prejudiced by defendant’s failure to comply with MCL 600.3204. To demonstrate such prejudice, they must show that they would have been in a better position to preserve their interest in the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.