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](https://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/2006-Sedan-ION-forfeiture.jpg)
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](https://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/lawyer-judge-reading-documents-at-desk-in-courtroom_t20_P3BLpN-1049x675.jpg)
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
When Can Your Silence Be Used Against You in a Legal Situation?
US Supreme Court - Salinas v. TexasWhen Can Silence Be Used Against You? In the realm of criminal law, the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution grants individuals critical protections, including the right to remain silent and the right against...
Supreme Court 8-1 Gun Possession Decision Changes Second Amendment
Supreme Court 8-1 Gun Possession Decision Changes Second Amendment Landscape Forever!Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), the federal statute that prohibits a person from possessing a firearm if he has been convicted of “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term...
Facial Recognition and Wrongful Arrests
Facial RecognitionHow Technology Can Lead to Mistaken-Identity Arrests Facial recognition technology has become increasingly prevalent in law enforcement, but its use raises critical questions about civil liberties and accuracy. One landmark case sheds light on the...
People v. Chandler Case: Protecting Fourth Amendment Rights
Court of Appeals of Michigan PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javarian CHANDLER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 368736 Decided: June 27, 2024Before: Borrello, P.J., and Swartzle and Young, JJ. Introduction In the People v. Chandler case, the Michigan...
What are Miranda Rights?
What are Miranda Rights?Miranda Rights, also known as the Miranda warning, are the rights given to people in the United States upon arrest. “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law…” These rights stem...
What is the Exclusionary Rule?
What is the Exclusionary Rule?The Exclusionary Rule is a legal principle in the United States that prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. Specifically, it applies to evidence obtained through an...
Government Drones in Your Life – Yes, They Made up a Reason
Long Lake Township v. Maxon The Costs Outweigh Benefits in Exclusionary Rule Application and the Slippery Slope of Fourth Amendment ProtectionsThe recent decision by the Michigan Supreme Court in Long Lake Township v. Maxon represents a significant shift in the...
Supreme Court Opinion – Created federal agencies need judicial oversight
Summary of the Opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v. RaimondoIn Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court addressed the enduring precedent set by Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which has shaped administrative law for...