Claim for proceeds from tax foreclosure sales; MCL 211.78t(2); Rafaeli, LLC v Oakland Cnty; Exclusivity; Retroactivity; MCL 711.28t(1)(b) & (6); Schafer v Kent Cnty; Due process; Notice (Form 5743); MCL 211.78i & t; In re Petition of Muskegon Cnty Treasurer for Foreclosure; Takings claim; Const 1963, art 10, § 2; US Const, Amends V & XIV; AFT MI v Michigan; Nelson v City of New York; Ripeness; The “harsh-&-unreasonable” consequences exception; Distinguishing Mays v Snyder

The court held that respondents failed to show that MCL 211.78t is not the exclusive procedural mechanism for the recovery of tax-foreclosure proceeds, but that remand was required to determine whether they received proper notice. Thus, it affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. In each of these consolidated appeals, the trial court denied respondents’ motion to disburse remaining proceeds after their properties were sold at a tax foreclosure sale and their tax debt was satisfied. On appeal, the court rejected respondents’ argument that MCL 211.78t is not the exclusive procedure for the recovery of tax-foreclosure proceeds. “The Legislature stated in MCL 211.78t(11) that § 78t ‘is the exclusive mechanism for a claimant to claim and receive any applicable remaining proceeds under the laws of this state.’ Legislative intent can hardly be more clearly expressed.” In addition, contrary “to respondents’ argument, subsection (6) is entirely inapplicable because their properties were not transferred or sold before” 7/18/20. And their takings claim was meritless. However, addressing notice, the court held that “[v]ested property interests are protected by due process, and ‘a former property owner has “a cognizable, vested property right to the surplus proceeds resulting from the tax-foreclosure sale of their properties.”’” And it is “imperative to provide explicit notifications that detail the right to claim any remaining proceeds, as outlined in MCL 211.78i, and the procedures specified in MCL 211.78t.” It found their remaining due process claims meritless. The court next declined to address their contention that the government’s retention of their remaining proceeds was a “classic taking” requiring compensation under Takings Clauses in state and federal constitutions, noting it was not ripe for review. Finally, the court found that the “harsh-and-unreasonable consequences doctrine” was inapplicable under the circumstances.