Retroactive application of Rafaeli, LLC v Oakland Cnty; Proctor v Saginaw Cnty Bd of Comm’rs; Federal & Michigan Takings Clauses; Hall v Meisner (6th Cir); Retroactive application of the amended language in MCL 211.78m & 78t; The doctrine of stare decisis; Inverse-condemnation claim; Res judicata; Unjust-enrichment & civil-conspiracy claims; General Property Tax Act (GPTA)

In this putative class action as to tax-foreclosure and sale procedures, the court held that to the extent the trial court declined to retroactively apply Rafaeli, it erred given that there is binding precedent. Further, the trial court improperly concluded the U.S. “Constitution failed to recognize a protected property interest in the equity plaintiffs had in their homes.” And the trial court improperly concluded Michigan “Supreme Court’s decision in Rafaeli did not permit plaintiffs’ takings claims against” defendant-Oakland County under the state constitution. Finally, the “trial court erred by refusing to give retroactive application to the amended language in MCL 211.78m and 78t.” As to retroactive application of Rafaeli, the court concluded the decision in Proctor, “on its own, was determinative of the issue of whether Rafaeli should be applied in the present case, because plaintiffs raised a similar argument at a similar time.” As to plaintiffs’ federal takings claims, the court determined that “Oakland County’s argument that Hall was wrongly decided has lost nearly all of the minimal weight it carried at the time Oakland County raised it.” The court held that Hall “applies in this case and stands for the proposition that Oakland County committed a taking under the United States Constitution when it took title to plaintiffs’ properties under the GPTA without paying plaintiffs just compensation for their equity in the subject properties. Because the trial court determined plaintiffs had not pleaded an unjust-takings claim under the United States Constitution, it erred.” As to plaintiffs’ takings claims against Oakland County under the state constitution, the court held that Rafaeli applied here and did “not preclude plaintiffs’ unjust-takings claims under the Michigan Constitution. Instead, in situations when there is not a public tax-foreclosure sale, Rafaeli requires the ‘surplus’ to be calculated on the basis of the value of the property retained, less what was legally owed. Because the trial court erred in ruling otherwise and granting Oakland County’s motion for summary disposition,” the court reversed. As to plaintiffs’ argument related to retroactive application of the amended language in MCL 211.78m and 78t, under the doctrine of stare decisis, Proctor was binding and required the court to vacate “the trial court’s dismissal of any of plaintiffs’ claims reliant on the retroactive application of the amended version of MCL 211.78m and 78t.” Reversed in part, vacated in part, affirmed in part, and remanded.