Note: This piece was originally featured in the February 2026 edition of MortgagePoint magazine.
The roots of Hladik, Onorato & Federman, LLP, trace back to 1950 when attorney John Landis founded a firm, originally serving farmers and small businesses in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Over time, the firm evolved alongside the default servicing industry, expanding its footprint while sharpening its focus on efficiency, compliance, and results. As our practice grew across state lines, so did our appreciation for the differences that define foreclosure work, including redemption rights. What may seem like a minor statutory distinction can meaningfully affect timelines, strategy, and outcomes. With that in mind, we start our tour in Michigan, where redemption serves as a clear example of why local knowledge still drives national success.
Michigan
In Michigan, the statutory right of redemption following foreclosure by advertisement is not a footnote; it is a defining feature of the process. Under Michigan law, most residential properties are subject to a six-month redemption period following the sheriff’s sale. That period can extend to 12 months in certain circumstances, such as when the property exceeds a specified acreage or loan balance threshold. Where the property is abandoned or inspection is refused, the redemption period may be shortened to 30 days. Conversely, redemption rights may end if an inspection does take place and significant structural damage is found and not repaired. For servicers and investors, these distinctions are critical. During the redemption window, title does not fully vest, marketability is limited, and occupancy issues can complicate preservation strategy. Timing of conveyance, insurance placement, inspections, and escalation protocols must all account for whether redemption is running and for how long. In Michigan, success depends not just on completing a sale, but on managing the post-sale period with precision.
Arizona
Traveling southwest, Arizona presents a markedly different landscape. Arizona is typically a non-judicial foreclosure state where trustees conduct trustees’ sales, but judicial foreclosures remain available and are prosecuted through the courts with sheriff’s sales. The distinction between those two paths directly controls whether redemption rights exist. In a properly conducted non-judicial trustee’s sale, there is no right of redemption. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-811(C), a trustee’s deed conveys the property absolutely, without right of redemption, extinguishing junior interests while leaving senior liens intact. For the servicing community, that finality provides speed, certainty, and the ability to move forward with liquidation or disposition immediately upon recordation.
Judicial foreclosures in Arizona introduce additional nuances. Under A.R.S. § 12-1282, redemption rights depend on the character and status of the property. If the property is both abandoned and not primarily used for agricultural or grazing purposes, the borrower may redeem within 30 days following the sheriff’s sale. If those conditions are not met, a six-month redemption period applies. Further, senior lienholders are afforded sequential, five-day redemption windows, in order of priority, following the applicable borrower redemption period. These layered timelines require careful drafting of judgments, accurate property assessments, and strategic planning around title and conveyance. In Arizona, choosing between non-judicial and judicial remedies is not merely procedural; it is a business decision informed by redemption exposure.
New Jersey
On the East Coast, New Jersey underscores how deeply redemption rights can be embedded in public policy. The Right of Redemption is a foundational component of New Jersey foreclosure jurisprudence, and waiver in loan documents is prohibited as a matter of public policy. In Borough of Merchantville v. Malik & Son, LLC, 218 N.J. 556 (2014), the New Jersey Supreme Court reaffirmed the protected nature of that right. Decades earlier, in Hardyston Nat’l Bank v. Tartamella, 56 N.J. 508 (1970), the Court clarified that a mortgagor may redeem within the ten-day period established by Court Rule 4:65-5 for objections to sale, and until confirmation if objections are filed.
That 10-day redemption period following sheriff’s sale has remained consistent. However, proposed legislation has sought to extend the period to 90 days, reflecting continued policy debate about borrower protections in the post-sale context. Although prior legislative sessions did not result in enactment, the issue remains active. For lenders and servicers operating in New Jersey, monitoring statutory developments is as important as understanding existing doctrine. Additionally, bankruptcy overlay cannot be ignored. Under 11 U.S.C. § 108(b), if a bankruptcy petition is filed before expiration of the state law redemption period, the debtor may receive an additional 60 days to exercise redemption rights. As the Third Circuit explained in Ctys. Contracting & Constr. Co. v. Constitution Life Ins. Co., 855 F.2d 1054 (3d Cir. 1988), federal law can effectively extend the grace period beyond the state deadline. In practice, this means that even a seemingly short redemption window may be lengthened, altering conveyance timing and post-sale strategy.
Pennsylvania
Finally, returning to Pennsylvania, where our firm’s roots began, the approach is again distinct. Pennsylvania does not provide a statutory post-sheriff’s-sale right of redemption for mortgages in typical residential mortgage foreclosures. Once the sheriff’s sale is completed and the deed is acknowledged and delivered, the borrower’s ability to reclaim the property is extinguished. That does not mean, however, that redemption considerations are entirely absent. Federal tax liens introduce a limited redemption right for the Internal Revenue Service under 26 U.S.C. § 7425(d), allowing the IRS 120 days from the date of sale (or the redemption period provided by state law, if longer) to redeem property where its lien was properly noticed. Although this right arises under federal law rather than Pennsylvania statute, it must be evaluated whenever a federal tax lien appears in title. Failure to account for it can disrupt resale timelines and title insurance assumptions.
Common Ground
Across these jurisdictions, one theme is consistent: redemption rights are not merely academic. They shape bidding strategy, investor communications, conveyance planning, occupancy management, bankruptcy response, and ultimate recovery calculations. A six-month statutory period in one state, no redemption in another, a 10-day objection window elsewhere, or a federal overlay that extends timelines: all materially alter risk profiles and operational decision-making. For national servicers and institutional investors, the temptation is to standardize processes.
Yet foreclosure remains, at its core, a creature of state law. The difference between 30 days and six months, between absolute finality and layered redemption rights, can determine whether a property is marketable, insurable, or subject to unexpected delay. Our experience across Michigan, Arizona, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania reinforces a simple principle: local statutory nuance drives national results. Redemption rights, in particular, demand careful analysis at the outset of each file. By aligning legal strategy with business objectives, state by state, servicers can better manage timelines, reduce uncertainty, and protect asset value in an increasingly complex regulatory environment.
Attorneys from Hladik Onorato & Federman LLP collaborated on this article, showcasing the firm’s nationally recognized strength in creditor’s rights, real estate litigation, and default servicing for lenders, servicers, and investors. The team includes Partner Stephen M. Hladik, a former Pennsylvania Deputy Attorney General and leading mortgage-law educator; Michigan Managing Attorney Athena J. Aitas, a 20+ year bankruptcy and recovery leader; Arizona Managing Attorney Carrie Thompson Jones, a trustee, compliance counsel, and fintech-savvy ADR professional; and Robert W. Williams, an accomplished foreclosure, title, and appellate litigator.
Together, they bring regulatory insight, courtroom experience, and operational servicing knowledge to help financial institutions protect assets, clear title, and maximize recovery in today’s evolving real-estate market.
