This summary also appears under Tax
Issues: Tax foreclosure; General Property Tax Act (MCL 211.1 et seq.); Notice; MCL 211.78i; Jones v. Flowers; Proof of service; In re Treasurer of Wayne Cnty. for Foreclosure; Republic Bank v. Genesee Cnty. Treasurer
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
Case Name: Streater v. Wayne Cnty. Treasurer
e-Journal Number: 57699
Judge(s): Per Curiam – Boonstra, Meter, and Servitto
The court held that the trial court properly granted summary disposition for the defendant-county, and properly dismissed the plaintiff-property owner's complaint to set aside the judgment of foreclosure. Plaintiff sued defendant claiming the tax foreclosure of his property should be set aside because he did not receive notice of the proceedings. On appeal, the court found that defendant complied with the requirements of MCL 211.78i. "Plaintiff does not dispute that defendant performed a search of the records enumerated in MCL 211.78i(6), mailed notices to those persons identified by certified mail return receipt requested, made a personal visit to the property, posted a notice, and additionally published notice as required by MCL 211.789(5)." Plaintiff argued "that he was denied due process of law by not receiving actual notice of the show cause hearing and foreclosure hearing." However, the court found that "uncontroverted evidence at trial supported the trial court's conclusion that no genuine question of material fact existed as to defendant's provision of notice that complied with MCL 211.78i, and that defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of adequate notice." Finally, the court rejected plaintiff's argument that defendant misled him into thinking he had more time to pay his taxes. "Although plaintiff made reference to his 'course of dealing' with defendant and 'detrimental reliance,' in his motion for reconsideration, he did not develop these arguments or support them with citations to authority. Instead, he reiterated his arguments that he had not received actual notice and that defendant's efforts to provide him with notice were constitutionally ineffective." Affirmed.
© 2014 State Bar of Michigan