Michigan Supreme Court – Money back for former homeowners

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.

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. 

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

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 won’t revive Flint water charges

Michigan Supreme Court won’t revive Flint water charges

The Michigan Supreme Court Wednesday shot down the state attorney general’s high-profile effort to criminally prosecute seven former public officials for their role in the Flint water crisis. In a series of orders, the court left in place lower court dismissals of the...

read more
Michigan Supreme Court Gives OK to Phones in Courts

Michigan Supreme Court Gives OK to Phones in Courts

The Michigan Supreme Court says the public can bring laptops, tablets and phones into local courthouses.The public can now bring cell phone, tablets and laptops into Michigan courthouses under a groundbreaking policy announced Wednesday by the state Supreme Court. The...

read more

Other Articles

Can I be arrested for flying a drone in Michigan?

Can I be arrested for flying a drone in Michigan?

Someone asked us... Can I be arrested for flying a drone?As we have seen ... They can charge you and arrest you for whatever they want. But Can I Be Arrested or Fined for Flying a Drone? Yes, you can be arrested or fined for breaking Michigan’s drone laws. Under MCL...

read more
Compounding Charges Laws in Michigan

Compounding Charges Laws in Michigan

Understanding Compounding Charges Laws in Michigan Compounding charges refer to the illegal act of accepting or agreeing to accept a benefit in exchange for not prosecuting a crime. In Michigan, this is considered a serious offense, and the law specifically prohibits...

read more
What is the Difference Between a Magistrate and a Judge

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...

read more
MI Court of Appeals – MRTMA defense denied dismissal

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...

read more
Michael Komorn-Criminal Defense Attorney

About Your Attorney

Attorney Michael Komorn

Categories

Disclaimer: Please remember that the information provided in these legal tips is for educational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Laws are subject to change, and interpretations can vary. While we strive for accuracy, legal information can be complex and may not apply to your specific situation. Reading this information does not establish an attorney-client relationship. It is crucial to consult with a qualified attorney to discuss the specific facts of your case before taking any action or making any decisions.

Other Topics

Driving Under the Influence

Michigan

Your Rights

Michigan Court of Appeals

Law Firm VIctories

Share This