Gruskin v. Fisher, 405 Mich. 51, 273 N.W.2d 893 (Mich. 1979)
Legal information, not legal advice. Verify against the cited opinion.
- Citation: 405 Mich. 51, 273 N.W.2d 893 (1979)
- Court / Year: Michigan Supreme Court, 1979
- Topic tags: forfeiture | foreclosure | remedies | election_of_remedies
- Facts: A land-contract vendor served the vendee with a notice of intent to forfeit and then a notice of forfeiture after default. The vendee sought to surrender (tender) possession of the premises to the vendor in lieu of money damages, contending that by serving the forfeiture notices the vendor had made an irrevocable election that obligated it to accept possession and forgo any further monetary recovery.
- Holding: Sending a notice of forfeiture is not an irrevocable election of remedies. Even after serving notice of forfeiture, the vendor may refuse the vendee’s tender of possession and instead commence an action for money damages or for foreclosure of the land contract. However, a vendor who does accept or take possession through forfeiture may not also recover money damages — taking possession is the election that extinguishes the contract debt.
- Reasoning: The Court reconciled the long-settled common-law rule (that a vendor’s forfeiture is an election barring a later foreclosure/deficiency on the same contract, because it is legally inconsistent to extinguish a contract by forfeiture and then resurrect it to enforce it) with modern summary-proceedings practice. Under the summary-proceedings statute, a notice of forfeiture functions more as a condition precedent to commencing the possessory action than as the irrevocable act of election itself; the irrevocable election occurs when the vendor takes possession.
- Practical impact for CFD operators/buyers: This is the controlling Michigan authority on the forfeiture-vs-foreclosure election. An operator who serves a forfeiture notice has not yet burned the bridge to foreclosure or a money judgment — but once it accepts possession via forfeiture, it forfeits the debt (no deficiency, ever). The decision lets a vendor keep its options open through the notice stage and choose the deficiency-preserving foreclosure track if the buyer abandons or tenders possession.
- Good-law status: good_law — repeatedly cited by Michigan courts on the land-contract election-of-remedies doctrine.
- Source (retrieved): https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2228532/gruskin-v-fisher/ · Verified: 2026-06-08
Jurisdictions that follow / cite: michigan
Disclaimer. Legal information, not legal advice. Confirm the opinion is still good law before relying on it.