Surplus proceeds from tax-foreclosure sales; MCL 211.78t; Whether payment decisions must be made on a property-by-property basis; MCL 211.78m(8)(c); Harbor Watch Condo Ass’n v Emmet Cnty Treasurer; Unjust-enrichment limit under MCL 211.78t(9); Principle that when statutes conflict, the more specific provision governs over the more general one; Milne v Robinson; General Property Tax Act (GPTA); Foreclosing governmental unit (FGU)

The court held that the GPTA requires surplus proceeds to be calculated and paid on a property-by-property basis, so the treasurer could not aggregate losses from other parcels to defeat the owner’s claim to surpluses from four profitable sales. Petitioner foreclosed on 20 of claimant’s parcels for unpaid taxes. Four of those sales produced surplus proceeds, but the other 16 produced either no surplus or losses, yielding a net loss in the aggregate. Claimant sought to recover the surplus generated by the four profitable parcels. Petitioner argued that paying those surpluses would “unjustly enrich” claimant because the county suffered an overall shortfall. The trial court agreed. On appeal, the court agreed with claimant that he was entitled to the surplus proceeds that resulted from the sales of his four properties that yielded a net profit, even though the aggregate sales of all 20 of his properties resulted in a net loss. “As MCL 211.78m(8)(c) makes clear, if a payment of surplus proceeds is ordered pursuant to MCL 211.78t(9), the FGU must make the payment ‘on a property-by-property basis.’” Applying that requirement, the court concluded that “an FGU cannot aggregate the surplus proceeds from the sale of one property to offset a shortfall from the sale of another property that the claimant owned.” However, the “trial court did just that when it found that awarding claimant the remaining proceeds from the four sales that yielded surpluses would unjustly enrich claimant at the expense of the public.” As such, it “erred when it aggregated the results of the sales of claimant’s 20 properties to justify denying claimant the surplus proceeds from the sale of the four properties at a profit.” As to any conflict between MCL 211.78m(8)(c) and the unjust enrichment provision of MCL 211.78t(9), the court noted that to the extent “the two provisions of the GPTA conflict, the more specific language of MCL 211.78m(8)(c) prevails over the general proscription of unjustly enriching claimants set forth in MCL 211.78t(9).” Reversed and remanded.