In Tambs v Jennings, an unpublished Michigan Court of Appeals opinion, the Plaintiffs lost their home to mortgage foreclosure. After the redemption period, the mortgagee started and eviction and obtained a judgment of possession, then sold the property to Defendants. Plaintiffs moved out of the home by the date provided in the possession judgment, but left personal property behind. The furnace was not working, the doors were unlocked and unsecured, and there was a dead dog under the porch. Defendants gave Plaintiffs one last chance to retrieve their personal property, but Plaintiffs failed to show up at the appointed time. When further attempts were rebuffed, Plaintiffs filed a claim and delivery action against the defendants. The trial court found that Plaintiffs had not abandoned the property left behind and entered a judgment against defendants for unlawfully retaining Plaintiff’s property. Plaintiffs appealed.
The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the evidence established that Plaintiffs had abandoned the personal property. A claim and delivery action cannot be maintained if the defendants did not “unlawfully” detain the Plaintiff’s property. Having abandoned the property, their desire later to reclaim some of it did not revive the abandonment.