Disposition of tax-foreclosure proceeds; MCL 211.78t(2); Rafaeli, LLC v Oakland Cnty; Notice; Raise or waive; Principle that courts shall disregard any error or defect in the proceedings which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties; MCL 600.2301; Substantial compliance; The wrongful-death saving statute; MCL 600.5852(1); In re Barry Cnty Treasurer for Foreclosure; Taking without just compensation; The harsh-and-unreasonable-consequences exception

The court held that the trial court did not err by denying claimants’ amended motion to disburse the proceeds that remained from the foreclosure sales of the decedent’s properties after the satisfaction of tax delinquencies, interests, penalties, and fees. Petitioner opposed the motions because claimants had not timely submitted their notices of intention. The trial court denied the amended motion, finding the notice deadline was a requirement to recover their remaining proceeds. On appeal, the court found each of claimants’ arguments meritless. First, it rejected their suggestion that it apply the substantial compliance rule to overlook their failure to timely file notice, noting they presented “no compelling reason why [it] should excuse them from their obligation to afford the trial court an opportunity to hear these arguments.” As such, it declined “to overlook the preservation requirements and deem[ed] these issues waived.” Next, it rejected their argument that the wrongful-death savings provision applied to toll the notice period. “Even if the saving provision applied, it would not apply in the present case because [the decedent] died prior to the foreclosure. ‘[T]he death-saving provision applies only to claims that survive the decedent’s death by operation of law. Any claim to surplus proceeds accrued after foreclosure of the property, so the claim was not in existence when’” the decedent passed away. Finally, the court rejected claimants’ contention that petitioner’s retention of the proceeds was a taking without just compensation, that it should apply the harsh-and-unreasonable-consequences exception to MCL 211.78t(2)’s statutory notice requirement, that their right to procedural due process was violated by the statute’s failure to provide adequate notice, and that the forfeiture of the proceeds caused by failure to strictly comply with the notice provision violated their rights to substantive due process. “Claimants acknowledge that we are bound by the rule of stare decisis to reject these arguments, and we decline their invitation to answer these questions anew.” Affirmed.