In a landmark decision, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that counties cannot retain surplus proceeds from tax-foreclosed property sales, a move poised to return millions to former homeowners. This ruling, stemming from the case Rafaeli, LLC v. Oakland County, found that keeping surplus auction proceeds violated the Michigan Constitution’s Takings Clause, which prohibits the government from seizing private property without just compensation.
MCL – Article X § 2 Seizing private property without just compensation
Typical Government Hustle
Historically, Michigan’s tax foreclosure law, established in 1999, allowed counties to auction off properties with unpaid taxes and retain any proceeds beyond the owed taxes and associated fees.
This practice led to significant financial windfalls for counties, often at the expense of the original property owners, who lost their homes and any equity built up in them.
The Supreme Court’s decision overturns this precedent, emphasizing that former homeowners are entitled to any surplus funds from these sales.
The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that practice as unconstitutional and said the homeowner was entitled to that surplus.
At the time of the ruling, only claims from 2020 and later qualified for reimbursement of funds, but a new ruling Monday could impact sales as far back as 2014.
The case that catalyzed this ruling involved Uri Rafaeli, whose property in Oakland County was sold for $24,500 after he failed to pay a $285 property tax debt.
The county kept the entire sale amount, far exceeding the owed tax. The court ruled this action as an unconstitutional taking, highlighting the inequity of the practice.
This decision has significant financial implications for Michigan counties.
Many counties relied on surplus proceeds from tax foreclosure auctions to supplement their budgets and support various county operations.
Wayne County, for instance, often used these funds to cover budget deficits. Now, counties may face financial strain, particularly if the ruling is applied retroactively, necessitating repayments for past surpluses retained from property sales prior to the 2020 decision.
In response to the ruling, Oakland County and others will need to amend their practices. Oakland County has already settled a related lawsuit, establishing a $38 million fund to compensate affected homeowners. This settlement underscores the potential scale of financial restitution that counties might need to provide.
Like every other poor decision the government makes it will be funded by tax payers.
The ruling aligns Michigan with other states that ensure surplus proceeds from tax sales are returned to former property owners, reinforcing property rights and equitable treatment. Moving forward, Michigan counties will need to adjust their tax foreclosure processes to comply with this ruling, likely influencing legislative changes to solidify the new legal framework.
For former homeowners, this ruling represents a significant victory, affirming their rights to any equity remaining in their properties after tax debts are settled. It also serves as a check on governmental overreach, ensuring that property seizure for unpaid taxes does not result in unjust enrichment at the expense of taxpayers.
This decision has broader implications beyond Michigan, resonating with similar cases across the United States. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with a Minnesota homeowner in a comparable situation, emphasizing a national trend towards protecting homeowners from losing their property equity in tax foreclosure processes.
Conclusion
The Michigan Supreme Court’s ruling mandates a fairer approach to tax foreclosures, ensuring surplus proceeds return to the rightful owners and setting a precedent for property rights protections. This decision will reshape county financial strategies and bolster homeowner protections, marking a pivotal shift in Michigan’s handling of tax-delinquent properties
Legal Counsel and Your Rights
When facing legal challenges, particularly in criminal cases, it is advisable to seek legal counsel immediately.
An experienced attorney can provide guidance on how to navigate interactions with law enforcement while safeguarding your constitutional rights.
Since 1993 our expert legal defense in navigating criminal law matters and protecting your constitutional rights are what we eat for breakfast everyday.
Contact Komorn Law PLLC if you’re ready to fight and win.
Research us and then call us.
More Rights You Should Know
Michigan Supreme Court to Hold Public Administrative Hearing
On September 18, 2024, the Michigan Supreme Court will conduct a public administrative hearing, providing an opportunity for citizens and legal professionals to engage directly with the state's highest court. This hearing, held via Zoom and livestreamed on YouTube,...
Michigan Supreme Court – People of Michigan v. Duff
A seizure may occur when a police vehicle partially blocks a defendant’s egress if thetotality of the circumstances indicate that a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave In the case of People v Duff (July 26, 2024)., the Michigan Supreme Court issued an...
Other Articles
Drones – What Drones? Update
Drone story update January 28, 2025 NJ drones 'were authorized to be flown by FAA for research,' Donald Trump says The mysterious drones that captivated New Jersey late last year were not enemy craft, but instead were authorized by the FAA, President Donald Trump said...
Terry Stop and Refusal to Identify Yourself to Police
Because this is how it always goes...This is the second part of this post. Read this first - Just Because You're Hanging Out in a High Crime Area Doesn't Make You Suspicious.Standard for Investigatory Detentions / Terry Stops Under Terry v Ohio and other well...
Just Because You’re Hanging Out in a High Crime Area Doesn’t Make You Suspicious
Mere presence in a “high crime” area does not provide particularized suspicion of criminal activity for an investigatory detention.People vs Prude In People v Prude, Prude was in a parked vehicle at an apartment complex that was regularly patrolled by police because...
Gun buyback program – Michigan
There's another bounty to be claimed besides turning in your neighbor.Defined here in HB6144 can mean so many things... “firearm” means any weapon that will, is designed to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by action of an explosiveEntrepreneurs get...
Sextortion – Michigan
Sextortion - Extortion with an S.Michigan House Bills 5887 and 5888 make sextortion illegal in Michigan. The law defines sextortion as a threat to create or disseminate sexually explicit images or videos of another person to coerce them. The new law makes a first...
Earned Sick Time Act – 2025 New Laws in Effect for Michigan
Some laws in effect in 2025 "Enacted by the People of Michigan" Here we go...remember these laws can change at any moment because that's what the politicians do that you don't.Earned Sick Time Act Because everyone is sick...sometimes Read more on your own time.AN ACT...
If I renounce my US citizenship can I get it back?
Venezuela or Bust If I renounce my U.S. citizenship can I get it back?Renouncing U.S. citizenship is a serious legal action. It involves voluntarily giving up your status as a U.S. citizen, usually by signing an oath of renunciation at a U.S. embassy or consulate...
New Laws in Effect for Michigan in 2025
Some laws in effect in 2025 "Enacted by the People of Michigan" Here we go...Minimum wage Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage Act - Michigan's minimum wage will increase twice during 2025, per a 2018 Supreme Court ruling. Starting Jan. 1, 2025, the standard minimum...