Court Opinion

ID: 9686336
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:42:52.036197+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:17.896515
License: Public Domain

Boyle, J.
(dissenting). I join with the dissent for the reason that the balance owed was not paid during the period of redemption. In Flynn v Korneffel, 451 Mich 186, 199; 547 NW2d 249 (1996), this Court stated that it was “incumbent on the vendee in default to pay the entire balance within [the period of redemption].” Because the defendants failed to pay that amount within the statutory period of redemption, the writ of restitution was properly issued.1

 Contrary to the majority’s assertion, the issue in this case is not limited to whether the Court of Appeals erred in determining that the failure to pay the monthly payments was a “material breach” under MCL 600.5744(6); MSA 27A.5744(6), ante at 243, n 14, but instead involves the broader question whether it was error for the Court of Appeals to affirm the issuance of the writ of restitution at all. That the parties did not cite Flynn, supra, by name, when they stipulated to the fact that the full amount of payment was not paid during the statutory period of redemption, does not mean that we are precluded from relying on Flynn to resolve this case. Because the defendants failed to pay even the lesser amount of $2,000 before expiration of the statutory period of redemption, it is not necessary to reach the question that both the majority and dissent reach, namely, whether the defendants in fact should have paid $3,600 or only the lesser amount of $2,000 within the redemption period.