Putative class action as to tax-foreclosure sale procedures; The General Property Tax Act (GPTA) (MCL 211.1 et seq.); In re Wayne Cnty. Treasurer Petition; MCL 211.78h(1); MCL 211.78k(5) & (6); MCL 211.78k(7) & MCL 211.78l(1); Gillie v. Genesee Cnty. Treasurer; In re Tuscola Cnty. Treasurer Petition; Procedural due process; Al-Maliki v. LaGrant; Bonner v. City of Brighton; Res judicata; Adair v. Michigan; Washington v. Sinai Hosp. of Greater Detroit; Substantive due process; Mettler Walloon, LLC v. Melrose Twp.; U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; Sanctions; Whether plaintiffs’ lawsuit was frivolous; MCR 2.114(E), MCR 2.625(A)(2), & MCL 600.2591(1); Meisner Law Group PC v. Weston Downs Condo Ass’n; Kelsey v. Lint; DC Mex Holdings, LLC v. Affordable Land, LLC

The court held that plaintiffs were not denied procedural due process, but not for the reasons articulated by the trial court. It also disagreed that res judicata barred plaintiffs’ claims. However, because the trial court reached the correct result, albeit for the wrong reasons, reversal was not warranted, and the court affirmed summary disposition for defendants. Summary disposition was also properly granted on the substantive due process claim. But defendants were not entitled to sanctions. It was “undisputed that plaintiffs were delinquent in their property tax payments, received notice as prescribed by the GPTA before foreclosure took place, did not timely redeem the properties, and did not timely appeal the judgment of foreclosure. Thus, under the terms of the GPTA, the trial court was divested of jurisdiction and plaintiffs’ interest in the property had been extinguished, resulting in a loss of standing. However, a narrow exception to the general rule exists.” Plaintiffs argued that they fell “into that category of property owners who were denied their constitutional rights to procedural due process.” The court disagreed. The treasury defendants asserted “that they complied with procedural due process requirements by citing the fact that they fulfilled all of the preforeclosure notice requirements of the GPTA.” But plaintiffs argued that they were denied adequate notice after the judgment of foreclosure was entered, “when they had entered into payment plans for redemption of their properties . . . .” They alleged in their complaint “that after entering those payment plans, they did not receive any further notice from the treasury defendants.” But under the GPTA, no further notice was required. The county treasurer, “having complied with all notice requirements, did not deprive plaintiffs of their right to due process. Moreover, the payment plans themselves were clear that failure to comply with terms of the agreement would result in a loss of property.” The court found that these “warnings were clear that plaintiffs were required to make consistent and timely payments to avoid losing their properties.”