Under Mi MCL 600.5750 can i be sued over damages after land contract after forfeiture

[sprklz]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Michigan

600.5750 Summary proceedings not exclusive of other remedies; merging or barring of claims; damages.
Sec. 5750.

The remedy provided by summary proceedings is in addition to, and not exclusive of, other remedies, either legal, equitable or statutory. A judgment for possession under this chapter does not merge or bar any other claim for relief, except that a judgment for possession after forfeiture of an executory contract for the purchase of premises shall merge and bar any claim for money payments due or in arrears under the contract at the time of trial and that a judgment for possession after forfeiture of such an executory contract which results in the issuance of a writ of restitution shall also bar any claim for money payments which would have become due under the contract subsequent to the time of issuance of the writ. The plaintiff obtaining a judgment for possession of any premises under this chapter is entitled to a civil action against the defendant for damages from the time of forcible entry or detainer, or trespass, or of the notice of forfeiture, notice to quit or demand for possession, as the case may be

I am being sued in small claims in the 79th district for damages caused "During the Land contract". Contract was recorded with the county and the seller has already recorded the deed back after the full forfeiture and possession has completed in the courts.Contract has no liability post forfeiture clauses.I paid the property and insurance and taxes on time and my escrow was + $1100 dollars at time of forfeiture. He is suing me in small claims mostly for carpet etc. In the claim he states "Damage done during duration of the contract" also I caused no waste during the process of forfeiture and fully cleaned the property before possession was turned over by the courts and no forceful entry was caused.

Is there a specific affirmative defense I can use for this case for my answer and should I have it moved to district court for stronger following of the law? And if he has no legal right to sue me after forfeiture is there a way to ask for a small claims dismal?

Counter claim question:
Also would I have a chance if I file a counter claim for my insurance payments back? We had a bad storm which tore a bunch of the roof and shingles off when I requested to him I need a insurance adjuster he refused to do so for me and told me I should have had renters insurance time and that i would have to fix it all out of my own pocket he would not allow a adjuster to come out. Mind you I payed for the insurance since day one and was never late so I proceeded to repair the roof all out of my pocket I dont mind at the time it was my house but it the fact of why was paying for insurance i could not use.

 

[quincy]

sprklz, you do not need to keep starting threads. The duplicates and triplicates get deleted. This thread is fine.

Someone who can answer your questions for you will be along eventually to answer them. Don't worry. Someone will find you here in the Real Estate section. Hang tight.

 

[sprklz]

Sorry was not sure what was the correct forum for my question. I am sorry if I caused a problem it wont happen again.

 

[FarmerJ]

Was this a so called rent to own deal ? I had to ask because when you wrote told me I should have had renters insurance time and that i would have to fix it all out of my own pocket he would not allow a adjuster to come out. < I cant imagine why renters insurance would cover roof repairs but Id suggest to you that you use the links above and speak to a real estate attorney as to how you can defend your self in this matter or how you should answer. When you spoke of paying insurance if the insurance was in his name there is no logical reason he cannot file a claim {unless he stopped paying it and kept the money} You also wrote> He is suing me in small claims mostly for carpet etc< did Your contract for deed / land contract forbid you from making changes to the property with out consent for things say like tearing out carpet or replacing windows or other such changes ? In contracts for deed they can be worded to require consent for things like carpets or new windows or even removing a wall to make two rooms into one big one.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Michigan

600.5750 Summary proceedings not exclusive of other remedies; merging or barring of claims; damages.
Sec. 5750.

The remedy provided by summary proceedings is in addition to, and not exclusive of, other remedies, either legal, equitable or statutory. A judgment for possession under this chapter does not merge or bar any other claim for relief, except that a judgment for possession after forfeiture of an executory contract for the purchase of premises shall merge and bar any claim for money payments due or in arrears under the contract at the time of trial and that a judgment for possession after forfeiture of such an executory contract which results in the issuance of a writ of restitution shall also bar any claim for money payments which would have become due under the contract subsequent to the time of issuance of the writ. The plaintiff obtaining a judgment for possession of any premises under this chapter is entitled to a civil action against the defendant for damages from the time of forcible entry or detainer, or trespass, or of the notice of forfeiture, notice to quit or demand for possession, as the case may be

I am being sued in small claims in the 79th district for damages caused "During the Land contract". Contract was recorded with the county and the seller has already recorded the deed back after the full forfeiture and possession has completed in the courts.Contract has no liability post forfeiture clauses.I paid the property and insurance and taxes on time and my escrow was + $1100 dollars at time of forfeiture. He is suing me in small claims mostly for carpet etc. In the claim he states "Damage done during duration of the contract" also I caused no waste during the process of forfeiture and fully cleaned the property before possession was turned over by the courts and no forceful entry was caused.

Is there a specific affirmative defense I can use for this case for my answer and should I have it moved to district court for stronger following of the law? And if he has no legal right to sue me after forfeiture is there a way to ask for a small claims dismal?

Counter claim question:
Also would I have a chance if I file a counter claim for my insurance payments back? We had a bad storm which tore a bunch of the roof and shingles off when I requested to him I need a insurance adjuster he refused to do so for me and told me I should have had renters insurance time and that i would have to fix it all out of my own pocket he would not allow a adjuster to come out. Mind you I payed for the insurance since day one and was never late so I proceeded to repair the roof all out of my pocket I dont mind at the time it was my house but it the fact of why was paying for insurance i could not use.

I agree with FarmerJ that it looks as if you will need to consult with a real estate attorney in your area of Michigan. Your land contract and the complaint filed against you needs to be personally reviewed to see what the legal title holder is legally able to claim in his lawsuit and what he cannot. What you posted confused me when I first read it and it still confuses me. I was hoping FarmerJ or another forum member would see something I could not see.

Normal wear and tear is not something that is generally collectable. Usually a land contract will require that the purchaser maintain the property in good condition, but reasonable wear and tear on the property is excepted.

Like FarmerJ, I am a bit confused about the insurance on the property. Usually a property sold under land contract will have both liability and casualty insurance coverage, to cover damage or destruction to the property. The land contract should detail who is responsible for paying this insurance. It sounds as if you were responsible for paying for the insurance. Roof repairs should be covered (although, depending on your deductible, you might have had to pay for repairs anyway). But you should have been able to call the insurance adjuster to come out and check the property. That is not something the legal title holder should have been able to control. Renters insurance is not something you look to with a land contract because you are purchasing the home and not renting it.

You said that the contract had no "liability past forfeiture clause" but it does not need to have this. The contract would, however, need to have written in the contract a forfeiture clause - and it apparently did if the legal title holder regained possession of the home through forfeiture. The ability of the legal title holder to sue for breach of contract and the ability of the legal title holder to foreclose on the property is there for the legal title holder whether it is spelled out in the contract or not.

The 79th District Court handles claims up to $25,000. I am not quite understanding your question on changing courts.

 

[sprklz]

Try to make it simple and more understanding.Contract had normal wear and tear etc. included and forfeiture option. I never removed and carpet or damaged anything or removed any improvements. What he wants is from the old carpets is the only thing i can think of. The small claims only states "Damage caused during land contract". I caused no damage or waste to the property during the contract and after forfeiture I turned keys over for no forcible entry was needed. Now it was
my under standing under Michigan law mcl. 600.5750 if he chose to use forfeiture as a remedy it bars him from any further claims except if i caused damages post forfeiture by trashing and casing waste in which i did not. Michigan land contracts are a beast in their own right as it acts more like a mortgage then anything else and yes deeds were transferred to me and the back to him after the forfeiture.I asked if about district court because it is currently in small claims and I wanted to know if taking up it to district court for stricter following of the laws was advisable? Is there a affirmative defense I can use if I am correct about Michigan law.

Insurance:
"Buyer shall pay monthly, in addition to monthly payments $150, which is a estimate of monthly cost of taxes,assessments and insurance premiums to insure against loss and damage."
I told him I would pay the deducible and was not interested in any money to be made i simply wanted a insurance claim in the end he refused to give me the insurance carrier name or file a claim for me so it cost me over 2k in damages from the strom. He always treated me as a renter and I would repeatedly remind him I was not a renter.

 

[quincy]

Try to make it simple and more understanding.Contract had normal wear and tear etc. included and forfeiture option. I never removed and carpet or damaged anything or removed any improvements. What he wants is from the old carpets is the only thing i can think of. The small claims only states "Damage caused during land contract". I caused no damage or waste to the property during the contract and after forfeiture I turned keys over for no forcible entry was needed. Now it was
my under standing under Michigan law mcl. 600.5750 if he chose to use forfeiture as a remedy it bars him from any further claims except if i caused damages post forfeiture by trashing and casing waste in which i did not. Michigan land contracts are a beast in their own right as it acts more like a mortgage then anything else and yes deeds were transferred to me and the back to him after the forfeiture.I asked if about district court because it is currently in small claims and I wanted to know if taking up it to district court for stricter following of the laws was advisable? Is there a affirmative defense I can use if I am correct about Michigan law.

Insurance:
"Buyer shall pay monthly, in addition to monthly payments $150, which is a estimate of monthly cost of taxes,assessments and insurance premiums to insure against loss and damage."
I told him I would pay the deducible and was not interested in any money to be made i simply wanted a insurance claim in the end he refused to give me the insurance carrier name or file a claim for me so it cost me over 2k in damages from the strom. He always treated me as a renter and I would repeatedly remind him I was not a renter.

Despite your clarifying post, I still think you need to seek out help from a real estate attorney in your area (Ludington?) for a review of the land contract, the forfeiture and the complaint filed against you. You could try here: http://michiganlegalhelp.org/

You have not answered the owner's complaint yet, have you?

By the way, was there a money judgment for damages with the judgment for possession?

You are right that land contracts in Michigan operate much like mortgages - except more confusing.

 

[sprklz]

Bay City,MI

Money damages are not allowed in Michigan when forfeiture remedy is used as the judge stated to him. He had tried because I had put a stop payment on the check after forfeiture notice and when he advised me the payment was not going towards the principle balance. I never fell behind on payments my escrow was actually +$1,100 dollars. What had happened is the classic balloon payment after 5 years and he chose not to extend the contract even after 5 years of never being a day late on the payments but that is business and risk I took on using a Land contract so I cant take it personal he is just trying to make as much as he can off the property in the long run..I do have a consultation on monday so i will know more then I just wanted some opinions on the statue before hand. No answer filed yet and I am not required to for small claims in my county but I will be filing one monday anyhow. What I am trying to understand is that he is using a civil action against me when the statue says he can only do that if....."civil action against the defendant for damages from the time of forcible entry or detainer, or trespass, or of the notice of forfeiture, notice to quit or demand for possession, as the case may be" ...but I never damaged it or caused waste I even made sure to fully clean and remove everything so he had no clean up or pile of things I no longer wanted at the curb out of self respect and to do the right thing. But I dont know if I am interpreting the statue correctly until monday.

Thank you for the opinions and time you took for my posts and my gibberish I guess thats why I am UAW and not a lawyer

 

[quincy]

Bay City,MI

Bay City is in Bay County, which would mean your case is in the 74th District Court. The 79th District Court covers Lake and Mason Counties.

Money damages are not allowed in Michigan when forfeiture remedy is used as the judge stated to him.

I do not believe that is quite correct. Following are two links. The first link is to "Court Form Complaint for Possession after Land Contract Forfeiture," where if you scroll to the bottom you will see there can be a supplemental complaint for monetary damages, pursuant to MCL 600.5739. The second link I have provided is to MCL 600.5739.

http://courts.mi.gov/Administration/SCAO/Forms/Courtforms/landlord-tenantlandcontract/dc103.pdf

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(sv1o3im5n33vjkbqwtialhsb))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-600-5739

He had tried because I had put a stop payment on the check after forfeiture notice and when he advised me the payment was not going towards the principle balance. I never fell behind on payments my escrow was actually +$1,100 dollars. What had happened is the classic balloon payment after 5 years and he chose not to extend the contract even after 5 years of never being a day late on the payments but that is business and risk I took on using a Land contract so I cant take it personal he is just trying to make as much as he can off the property in the long run..

So there was a forfeiture because you found you could not (or you chose not to) refinance the home after 5 years. It is too bad that the owner did not extend the land contract for you but, yes, by not paying the balance at the end of the 5 year contract term, the forfeiture is not surprising.

I do have a consultation on monday so i will know more then I just wanted some opinions on the statue before hand. No answer filed yet and I am not required to for small claims in my county but I will be filing one monday anyhow. What I am trying to understand is that he is using a civil action against me when the statue says he can only do that if....."civil action against the defendant for damages from the time of forcible entry or detainer, or trespass, or of the notice of forfeiture, notice to quit or demand for possession, as the case may be" ...but I never damaged it or caused waste I even made sure to fully clean and remove everything so he had no clean up or pile of things I no longer wanted at the curb out of self respect and to do the right thing. But I dont know if I am interpreting the statue correctly until monday.

It is good that you have a consultation with an attorney on Monday. A personal review seems necessary. And, if you are thinking about countersuing, the attorney can assist you with that.

Thank you for the opinions and time you took for my posts and my gibberish I guess thats why I am UAW and not a lawyer

Nothing you wrote was "gibberish." You explained your (confusing) situation pretty well. It is just hard to grasp some things in a forum setting based on a few short posts. Contracts can be especially hard without seeing exactly what is written.

Good luck.

 

[sprklz]

I would say that Sec. 5739 would stands more for if I started to destroy the property during the forfeiture process say like waste or malicious destruction to the premises causing or caused during recovery of the property not things that happened post contract he was allowed inspections of property and keys handed over without forcible entry.He can not claim any of that with property being well maintained.Only thing i can think of that he could try for is the storm damage and water got into the wood but that was fixed quickly. But I also have a note signed by him saying i was not responsible for that damage or any inside due to roof I made sure to when he would not file claim figured he might be up to something


Sec. 5739.

(1) Except as provided by court rules, a party to summary proceedings may join claims and counterclaims for money judgment for damages attributable to wrongful entry, detainer, or possession, for breach of the lease or contract under which the premises were held, or for waste or malicious destruction to the premises. The court may order separate summary disposition of the claim for possession, without prejudice to any other claims or counterclaims. A claim or counterclaim for money judgment shall not exceed the amount in controversy that otherwise limits the jurisdiction of the court.