The language of the statute in Gage is very similar to RJA § 5714(1)(e) quoted in part in footnote 6, infra. See also Reid v Rylander, 270 Mich. 263, 267; 258 N.W. 630 (1935) ("We again hold that validity of the [foreclosure] sale may be tested in a summary proceeding based thereon, insofar as invalidity thereof appears in the procedure * * *"). See, e.g., Guardian Depositors Corp v Keller, 286 Mich. 403, 409; 282 N.W. 194 (1938). This is not to say that noncompliance with HUD rules would necessarily be a sufficient basis for a finding of invalid foreclosure in this state.
A technical error is not sufficient to void a foreclosure sale. See Guardian Depositors' Corp. of Detroit v. Keller, 282 N.W. 194, 197 (Mich. 1938). Furthermore, for a purported defect to warrant setting aside a foreclosure sale, that defect must relate to the foreclosure procedure itself.
Moreover, the decree of the state court, not having been appealed from, is res judicata of the rights of the parties as to the rate of interest on the judgment. Bowman v. Caldwell, 135 Neb. 554, 282 N.W. 194, 120 A.L.R. 657; Beck v. McKibben, 63 Neb. 413, 88 N.W. 765. The debtor's contention that the Federal Farm Mortgage Corporation is not entitled to participate in the proceeds of the sale of the farm is based upon the fact that the Corporation failed to file formal proof of its claim in bankruptcy.
Michigan Courts have held that the mentioning of intermediate assignments of property does not impact the validity of the notice of foreclosure. Depositors Corp. v. Keller, 286 Mich. 403, 282 N.W. 194 (1938). In Depositors, the court held that a mistake in the name of an intermediate assignee was inconsequential as the party was "in the chain of assignments...but was not the assignee that foreclosed on the mortgage."
Courts should not disregard the notice statute's positive requirements, however, "slight or inconsequential" mistakes are insufficient to void a foreclosure sale. Guardian Depositors v. Keller, 286 Mich. 403, 412 (Mich. 1938); citing Lau v. Scribner, 197 Mich. 414, 163 N.W. 914 (Mich. 1917). Michigan law requires that a notice of foreclosure by advertisement include the following:
This is the reason for the notice requirement, and only substantial compliance — that which will prevent the sort of surprise and unfairness that the section is designed to avoid — is required. Guardian Depositors' Corporation of Detroit v. Keller, 286 Mich. 403, 282 N.W. 194 (1938); Oades v. Standard Savings Loan Ass'n., 257 Mich. 469, 241 N.W. 262 (1932). Additional documents, such as the November 1, 1973, amendment to the mortgage, when their inclusion would add nothing to the substance of tile notice, need not be included.
We have held that inadequacy of price alone will not vitiate an otherwise fair and regular statutory foreclosure sale. Carlisle v. Dunlap, 203 Mich. 602; Cameron v. Adams, 31 Mich. 426; Moss v. Keary, 231 Mich. 295; Blackwood v. Sakwinski, 221 Mich. 464 (29 ALR 1314); Postal v. Home State Bank for Savings, 284 Mich. 220; Guardian Depositors Corp. v. Keller, 286 Mich. 403. We have apparently relaxed this rule in cases where the foreclosure was by decree rather than by statutory advertisement.