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 – Forfeiture of 2006 Saturn ION
FORFEITURE OF 2006 SATURN IONMichigan Supreme Court Ruling - July 25, 2025 The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that Detroit police can no longer seize cars through civil asset forfeiture unless they can demonstrate that the vehicle was used for drug trafficking.The...
Michigan Supreme Court Opinion regarding MMMA caregivers and local ordinances
DeRUITER v TOWNSHIP OF BYRON Chief Justice: Bridget M. McCormackChief Justice Pro Tem: David F. VivianoJustices: Stephen J. Markman, Brian K. Zahra, Richard H. Bernstein, Elizabeth T. Clement, Megan K. CavanaghReporter of Decisions: Kathryn L. Loomis Docket No....
Other Articles
What is the Difference Between a Magistrate and a Judge
What's the difference between a Magistrate and a Judge in Michigan?In Michigan’s court system, both magistrates and judges play important roles, but they have different responsibilities and authority. Understanding the differences between the two can help you know...
Add on charges for your permanent record – Using a computer
The Use of Electronic Devices to Commit Crimes in Michigan Yes that means your cellphone... Computer" means any connected, directly interoperable or interactive device, equipment, or facility that uses a computer program or other instructions to perform specific...
MI Court of Appeals – MRTMA defense denied dismissal
Does the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act protect you in all Marijuana scenarios?The Conflict The central issue in this interlocutory appeal is whether the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA), MCL 333.27951 et seq., prevents a...
The “Automobile Exception” in Michigan law
The "automobile exception" in Michigan law allows police to search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime.This exception is grounded in the idea that vehicles are inherently mobile, meaning evidence could be...
Can You Be Charged for Using Your Phone During a Crime in Michigan?
Your breaking the law if you are using a cellphone while driving. On top of that if you're committing a crime and you use the phone... You're in for a prosecutor's extra round of office high fives.Can You Be Charged for Using Your Phone During a Crime in Michigan?...
The search being challenged was triggered by the odor of cannabis
The case People of Michigan v. Freddie Wilkins III (No. 367209) revolves around a legal challenge regarding the search of a vehicle without a warrant.Police conducted a warrantless search under the "automobile exception."The case People of Michigan v. Freddie Wilkins...
Prohibited person possessing firearm
Thinking about going hunting? Not if you are a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm in Michigan.In Michigan, certain individuals are legally prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. Being caught with a firearm if you fall under this category can...
Carrying a Concealed Weapon in Michigan
Carrying a concealed weapon (CCW) in Michigan without proper authorization is a crime.Carrying a concealed weapon (CCW) in Michigan without proper authorization can lead to serious criminal charges. Michigan law has strict regulations regarding firearms, and violating...