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 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...
Michigan Supreme Court amendment delays the implementation of a rule amendment
The Michigan Supreme Court issued an order that delays the implementation of a rule amendment that would have impacted law firm advertising. On Aug. 30, 2018 the court stated that it would defer the amendment of MRPC Rule 7.2 that was scheduled to take effect Sept. 1...
Other Articles
Criminal Sexual Conduct (CSC) Second Degree
Criminal Sexual Conduct (CSC) in Michigan: Definitions, Penalties, and Legal References.Criminal Sexual Conduct (CSC) is a set of laws in Michigan that define and penalize various forms of sexual offenses. These laws are categorized into four degrees, with each degree...
Criminal Sexual Conduct (CSC) First Degree
Criminal Sexual Conduct (CSC) in Michigan: First DegreeCriminal Sexual Conduct (CSC) is a set of laws in Michigan that define and penalize various forms of sexual offenses. These laws are categorized into four degrees, with each degree reflecting the severity of the...
Criminal Sexual Conduct (CSC) – Michigan
Criminal Sexual Conduct (CSC) in Michigan: Definitions, Penalties, and Legal References.Criminal Sexual Conduct (CSC) is a set of laws in Michigan that define and penalize various forms of sexual offenses. These laws are categorized into four degrees, with each degree...
I’ve Been Accused of Criminal Sexual Conduct (CSC) in Michigan
If you are innocent and falsely accused of Criminal Sexual Conduct (CSC) in MichiganIf you are innocent and falsely accused of Criminal Sexual Conduct (CSC) in Michigan, it is crucial to act carefully and strategically to protect your rights and ensure the truth comes...
Carrying a Firearm Under the Influence of Cannabis
Laws and Penalties in Michigan of Carrying a Concealed Firearm or EMD Under the Influence of a Controlled Substance.Michigan controlled substance info at end of article and yes cannabis is still a controlled substance 1 at the time of this article... but it is an...
Carrying a Firearm Under the Influence of Alcohol in Michigan
Laws and Penalties in Michigan of Carrying a Concealed Firearm or EMD Under the Influence of Alcohol or Controlled SubstanceAn individual shall not An individual shall not carry a concealed pistol or portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption (EMD)...
Are there exceptions that justify warrantless searches?
Exceptions to your 4th Amendment Rights against Search and Seizure (more to come).The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution safeguards citizens by prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures and generally mandates the necessity of a warrant for such intrusions....
Warrantless Searches in Michigan
I don't need a warrant for that...In Michigan, as in the rest of the United States, the Fourth Amendment of the fading Constitution provides individuals with protection against unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement. Generally, this means that police...