Tax foreclosure sale proceeds; Rafaeli, LLC v Oakland Cnty; MCL 211.78t; Enforceability of § 78t(2)’s deadline for filing a notice of intent; Due process; In re Petition of Muskegon Cnty Treasurer for Foreclosure; Harsh & unreasonable consequences; Claims under the state & federal Takings Clauses; MCL 211.78m(8); Unjust enrichment

Noting that it rejected the same claims raised here in Muskegon Treasurer, the court affirmed the trial court’s order denying respondents’ motions to disburse remaining tax foreclosure sale proceeds. Petitioner-county treasurer opposed their motions because they did not meet “the statutory requirement to give timely notice of their intent to claim the proceeds.” Respondents argued the procedures “in MCL 211.78t are not the exclusive means for recovering surplus proceeds and that petitioner” committed an unconstitutional taking. They further asserted “§ 78t(2)’s deadline for filing a notice of intent to claim the proceeds is unenforceable and that they were not provided adequate due process.” The court resolved these issues in Muskegon Treasurer, a published opinion. Like the respondents there, respondents here contended “that alternate means of recovering the proceeds that remain after the sale or transfer of their property and the satisfaction of their tax debts and associated costs is suggested by: (1) the difference between Rafaeli’s ‘surplus proceeds’ and the statute’s ‘remaining proceeds’; (2) use of the permissive ‘may’ in MCL 211.78t(1); and (3) the fact that ‘claimants’ are a subset of foreclosed property owners.” However, the court was “bound by the holding in Muskegon Treasurer that the Legislature intended MCL 211.78t as the exclusive mechanism for claiming and recovering remaining proceeds.” And, as it did in Muskegon Treasurer, the court rejected “respondents’ attempt to frame their ‘arguments in terms of substantive due process.’” This theory merged with their takings claims under the federal and state constitutions. “If ‘a constitutional claim is covered by a specific constitutional provision the claim must be analyzed under the standard appropriate to that specific provision, not under the rubric of substantive due process.’” Respondents’ harsh and unreasonable consequences argument was also “raised and rejected in Muskegon Treasurer.” As to their takings claims, they did “not identify any statutory provision relevant to the facts of this case that would allow petitioner to distribute proceeds to respondents when they have not complied with § 78t(2). To the extent that petitioner complied with the requirements of § 78m(8), it neither seized nor confiscated respondents’ proceeds.” Finally, the court found that “petitioner was not ‘unjustly enriched.’”