VINCENT A BURTON V NATIONWIDE ADVANTAGE MORTGAGE CO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
VINCENT A. BURTON,
UNPUBLISHED
November 22, 2005
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
NATIONWIDE
COMPANY,
ADVANTAGE
MORTGAGE
No. 255749
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 03-337863-NZ
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Smolenski, P.J., and Schuette and Borrello, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from a circuit court order granting defendant’s motion for
summary disposition. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant
to MCR 7.214(E).
Plaintiff filed this action to set aside a sale of his property pursuant to a foreclosure by
advertisement after failing to redeem it. See MCL 600.3201 et seq. His sole claim on appeal is
that the statutory foreclosure-by-advertisement proceedings denied him his constitutional right to
due process. This issue has not been preserved because it was not raised and addressed below.
Camden v Kaufman, 240 Mich App 389, 400 n 2; 613 NW2d 335 (2000).
Furthermore, plaintiff’s argument is without merit. “It is unquestioned that state action is
required in order to assert a denial of due process under both the Michigan and United States
Constitutions.” Nat’l Airport Corp v Wayne Bank, 73 Mich App 572; 574; 252 NW2d 519
(1977). “[F]oreclosure by advertisement is not a judicial action and does not involve state action
for purposes of the Due Process Clause, but rather is based on contract between the mortgagor
and the mortgagee.” Cheff v Edwards, 203 Mich App 557, 560; 513 NW2d 439 (1994).
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Bill Schuette
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
-1-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
