REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961
Act 236 of 1961
600.3237 Interior inspection during redemption period; notice; contents; methods for achieving actual notice.
Sec. 3237.
(1) After a foreclosure sale under this chapter, if the purchaser at the sale intends to conduct an interior inspection of the property under section 3238 during the redemption period, the purchaser shall provide an initial notice to the mortgagor and any other person that has possession of the property in writing that contains all of the following:
(a) The identity of the purchaser.
(b) The residence or business address, mailing address, telephone number, and, if applicable, electronic mail address at which the purchaser may be contacted.
(c) The date of the sale, the amount of the sale, and the estimated date the redemption period expires.
(d) The details of the purchaser's rights of inspection under section 3238.
(e) One or more alternative methods for surrendering control of the property under section 3278.
(f) A statement that if the mortgagor intends to vacate the property at any time after the sale, he or she must notify the purchaser as required by section 3278, and that if the mortgagor does not do so, he or she may risk heightened liability for damage to the property.
(2) The purchaser shall provide notice under this section by certified mail, physical posting on the property, or any other method reasonably calculated to achieve actual notice.
History: Add. 2014, Act 125, Eff. June 19, 2014
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2016–2024 · leading case:
People v. March, 499 Mich. 389 (Mich. 2016).
People v. March, 499 Mich. 389 (Mich. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Following the sale, the purchaser can conduct inspections of the property only by complying with the numerous provisions in MCL 600.3237 and MCL 600.3238. 16 For example, the purchaser may only inspect the inside of the property once, unless there is evidence that the property…”
Detroit Club Holdings LLC v. Jay Edward (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 3× “3238(2) address the notice a purchaser must give the mortgagor if the purchaser intends to inspect the interior of the property after a foreclosure sale. MCL 600.”
Detroit Club Holdings LLC v. Jay Edward (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 3× “3238(2) address the notice a purchaser must give the mortgagor if the -8- purchaser intends to inspect the interior of the property after a foreclosure sale.”
1373 Moulin LLC v. Deana Wolf (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 3× “” The notice stated that Malavia had purchased the property at a foreclosure sale and requested “the rightful opportunity to conduct an interior inspection of the property pursuant [to] MCL 600.3237 and MCL 600.3238” on December 3, 2021.”
Jason Charest v. Citi Inv. Grp. Corp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“Before plaintiff submitted his claim for the surplus, defendant gave notice to plaintiff of its intent to inspect the property pursuant to MCL 600.3237 and MCL 600.3238. It was not permitted entry.”
Jason Charest v. Citi Inv. Grp. Corp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“Before plaintiff submitted his claim for the surplus, defendant gave notice to plaintiff of its intent to inspect the property pursuant to MCL 600.3237 and MCL 600.3238. It was not permitted entry.”
Batth Investments LLC v. Stan Miciura (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
“On June 4, 2018, defendants filed a summary-proceeding action against Barney to evict her from the condominium, asserting that she had failed to provide an interior inspection of the property as required under MCL 600.3237 and MCL 600.3238. On June 13, 2018, the district court…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3237(2) — 2 cases
Detroit Club Holdings LLC v. Jay Edward (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
“3238(2) address the notice a purchaser must give the mortgagor if the purchaser intends to inspect the interior of the property after a foreclosure sale. MCL 600.”
Detroit Club Holdings LLC v. Jay Edward (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
“3238(2) address the notice a purchaser must give the mortgagor if the -8- purchaser intends to inspect the interior of the property after a foreclosure sale.”
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.