Background
Scott Probst mortgaged property in Muskegon County, and the mortgage was later assigned to Comerica Bank. After Probst defaulted, Comerica purchased the property at a sheriff’s sale. Probst did not redeem it within the statutory period, and Comerica obtained a district-court judgment granting it possession and summary disposition of the remaining claims.
Ervin Joseph LaMie, an occupant of the property, claimed an interest arising from a 2022 agreement under which Probst would convey his interest if he failed to pay for equipment LaMie supplied. After the foreclosure sale, LaMie recorded a commercial lien, expungement affidavits, and a quitclaim deed from Probst. LaMie then sued Probst to quiet title, and the two submitted a proposed consent judgment assigning Probst’s asserted rights to LaMie. The circuit court declined to enter it and dismissed the case sua sponte as an improper collateral attack on the earlier possession judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that LaMie’s quiet-title action sought to relitigate the same ownership and possessory issues resolved in Comerica’s district-court case. Because a challenge to a judgment generally must be pursued by direct appeal rather than through a second proceeding, the circuit court properly treated the action as a collateral attack.
The exception permitting collateral attacks on void judgments did not apply. Neither LaMie nor Probst adequately argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction, and any such argument would have failed because Michigan district courts have statutory subject-matter jurisdiction over summary proceedings to recover possession. The 60th District Court also had in rem jurisdiction over the Muskegon County property. LaMie’s recorded expungement affidavits could not unilaterally undo the foreclosure sale or create, destroy, or alter a substantive property interest.
Key Takeaways
- A party generally may not use a later quiet-title action to attack issues resolved by an earlier judgment; the proper route is a direct appeal in the original proceeding.
- A collateral attack may challenge a void judgment entered without personal or subject-matter jurisdiction, but no viable jurisdictional defect existed here.
- After the redemption period expired, Comerica’s sheriff’s deed vested it with the relevant rights in the property, and later liens, expungement affidavits, and a quitclaim deed from Probst did not displace those rights.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the finality of foreclosure-related possession judgments and limits efforts to repackage unsuccessful ownership claims as separate quiet-title actions. Parties claiming an interest in foreclosed property must timely pursue intervention, postjudgment relief, or direct appellate review in the original proceeding.
The court also cautioned LaMie and Probst that further meritless or frivolous proceedings could result in damages, disciplinary action, or filing restrictions under Michigan appellate rules.