Bertha Baldwin v. Michael Edward Williams

── Bertha Baldwin v. Michael Edward Williams ── Court: Michigan Court of Appeals Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS BERTHA BALDWIN, UNPUBLISHED May 21, 2026 Plaintiff-Appellee, 11:34 AM v No. 373471 Ionia Circuit Court MICHAEL EDWARD WILLIAMS, LC No. 2024-036536-AV Defendant-Appellant. Before: WALLACE, P.J., and LETICA and FEENEY, JJ. PER CURIAM. This action for possession after land contract forfeiture under the summary proceedings act, MCL 600.5701 et seq., was filed in district court by plaintiff, Bertha Baldwin, as the vendor of a land contract, against defendant, Michael Williams, the vendee (and plaintiff’s nephew). Following a bench trial, the district court entered an April 24, 2024 judgment of possession after land contract forfeiture for the property in question stating that “An order of eviction may be issued upon expiration of 90 days . . . after the entry of this judgment if the defendant does not: . . . b. cure the following breach: property to be kept in good order inside and out.” Plaintiff thereafter filed an application for order of eviction. After a July 17, 2024 hearing thereon, the district court entered an order of eviction that same day. The circuit court granted defendant’s application for leave to appeal from the foregoing judgment and order, and, after briefing and oral argument, entered an order denying that appeal, i.e., affirming the district court. Plaintiff thereafter filed an application for leave to appeal, which this Court granted. For the reasons set forth herein, we find that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the present case under the summary proceedings act. We accordingly vacate the circuit court order, vacate the district court judgment of possession after land contract forfeiture and order of eviction, and remand to the district court for entry of an order dismissing this matter without prejudice. -1-  I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND In June 2013, plaintiff and defendant entered into a land contract. It indicates that it was drafted by Bertha “Bert” Baldwin and provides for Michael E. Williams’ purchase of property located at 5845 East Borden Road in Fenwick, Michigan, from her, for a purchase price of “$35,454.97 balance on mortgage at Chase Bank + interest.” It is dated June 19, 2013, signed by both parties, and provides for the following: a $2,000 down payment; a monthly payment amount of $400 to start on July 1, 2013; that purchaser is responsible for maintaining property and liability insurance; and a late fee of $30 on payments. The land contract further provides: 1. Property to be keep [sic] in good order inside & out. 2. No more than 3 audits [sic, adults] living in trailer or on property at one time. Notably, nowhere does the land contract “expressly provide for termination or forfeiture, or give the vendor the right to declare a forfeiture, in consequence of the nonpayment of any moneys required to be paid under the contract or any other material breach of the contract.” MCL 600.5726. Plaintiff served a forfeiture notice on Michael E. Williams on January 17, 2024. It states in part on the pre-printed form that the land contract “is in default because of nonpayment of installments of principal and/or interest, and also because of,” after which a box labelled “other:” is checked next to the following handw