Tax foreclosure sale proceeds; Exclusivity of MCL 211.78t’s procedures; In re Petition of Muskegon Cnty Treasurer for Foreclosure; In re Petition of Barry Cnty Treasurer for Foreclosure; Rafaeli, LLC v Oakland Cnty; Unjust enrichment; Harsh-&-unreasonable-consequences exception; Constitutional claims; Due process; Takings claim; Notice; Authority under MCL 600.2301; Statutory deadline; Applicability of the wrongful death saving provision

Based on Muskegon Treasurer, the court again concluded “that the Legislature intended MCL 211.78t as the exclusive mechanism for claiming and recovering remaining proceeds, that the statutory scheme for recovering remaining proceeds satisfied procedural due process, that claimants’ substantive due-process challenges are unavailing, and that [they] do not have a compensable takings claim because the Legislature provided a means for them to recover remaining proceeds; they simply failed to take advantage of it. The trial court did not err by declining to” disregard the statutory deadline “or by determining that the wrongful death saving provision did not toll the deadline for the claimant-Estates.” Thus, the court affirmed the order denying their motions to disburse remaining tax foreclosure proceeds. They contended, among other things, “that MCL 211.78t is permissive[.]” They insisted that the statutory language “does not evince the Legislature’s intent to exclude other claims and remedies to recover surplus proceeds.” The court addressed identical claims in Muskegon Treasurer, and “held, for reasons that we need not repeat, that the Legislature intended MCL 211.78t as the exclusive mechanism for claiming and recovering remaining proceeds.” Claimants conceded that the court was “bound by the principle of stare decisis to follow that holding.” But they urged it “to issue a conflicting opinion under MCR 7.215(J)(2) on the basis that Muskegon Treasurer overwhelmingly relied on caselaw involving plaintiffs who had a claim of entitlement.” It declined to do so. Contrary to claimants’ claim, the court “based its analysis of the issue on the text of the statute, not on the cases that claimants identify in their brief.” The court found that claimants’ “failure to address the actual basis of this Court’s holding does not support the issuance of a conflicting opinion.” Claimants also asserted “that they can recover remaining proceeds through a claim of unjust enrichment.” They were mistaken. The “Legislature has made clear that MCL 211.78t provides the exclusive means to recover remaining proceeds; therefore, claimants cannot recover remaining proceeds through a claim of unjust enrichment.” They further asserted “that the harsh-and-unreasonable-consequences exception should apply to prevent enforcement of the July 1 notice deadline and the resulting loss of their remaining proceeds.” They conceded in a reply brief that the court rejected this claim in Muskegon Treasurer, but they contended that the analysis there “was flawed for the reasons stated in claimants’ main brief. Their argument in their main brief, however, is the same argument” rejected in Muskegon Treasurer.