FILED DECEMBER 21, 2012

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
SUPREME COURT

EUIHYUNG KIM and IN SOOK KIM,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
Defendant-Appellant.

BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH
MARILYN KELLY, J.

At issue in this case is the manner in which defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Chase), the successor in interest to Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu), acquired plaintiffs’ mortgage. Plaintiffs’ mortgage was among the assets held by WaMu when it collapsed in 2008 in the largest bank failure in American history.1 Specifically, we must determine whether defendant acquired plaintiffs’ mortgage by “operation of law” and, if so, whether MCL 600.3204(3), which sets forth requirements for foreclosing by advertisement, applies to the acquisition of a mortgage by operation of law. We asked the parties to address whether, if the foreclosure proceedings that defendant initiated were flawed, the subsequent foreclosure is void ab initio or merely voidable.2 We hold that defendant did not acquire plaintiffs’ mortgage by operation of law. Rather, defendant acquired that mortgage through a voluntary purchase agreement. Accordingly, defendant was required to comply with the provisions of MCL 600.3204.We further hold, differently than did the Court of Appeals, that the foreclosure sale in this case was voidable rather than void ab initio. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

[…]