Taxation – Foreclosure — Notice

Listen to this article

Where plaintiffs sought monetary damages under MCL 211.78l following the defendant county’s tax foreclosure of certain property, a judgment dismissing the complaint should be affirmed despite the plaintiffs’ claim that they had no notice of the foreclosure proceedings.

“In effect, plaintiffs argue that MCL 211.78l requires that the owner of the interest in the property receive actual notice; constructive notice is insufficient. We disagree.

“Having rejected plaintiffs’ position that only actual notice will prevent damages under MCL 211.78l, the next question is whether 2CC received ‘any notice required under the act.’

“Constructive notice is a legally accepted form of notice and, therefore, sufficient to fall within the confines of ‘any notice’ under MCL 211.78l. Plaintiffs assert that there is no evidence of notice by publication in the record and that there was no first-hand testimony that any Title Check employee or representative posted the notice to the property. Plaintiffs’ arguments misrepresent the record.

“Plaintiffs have to prove that they did not receive any notice. Evidence of receipt of any form of notice is sufficient to overcome a claim for damages under the statute.

“In sum, MCL 211.78l does not require a lack of actual notice, but a lack of any notice, meaning notice of any type or kind will suffice. Here, where there was evidence in the record that the foreclosure notice was posted to the property during a time when 2CC was exercising control and dominion over the property by the building of a home, the trial court did not clearly err by charging 2CC with knowledge of the notice.”

2 Crooked Creek v. Cass County Treasurer; 07-100650, 18 pages; Michigan Court of Appeals published per curiam; Sawyer, J., Cavanagh, J., K.F. Kelly, J.; on appeal from Court of Claims; Cindy R. Victor for appellant; Thomas King for appellee.