Surplus proceeds from tax-foreclosure sales of real property; Constitutionality of MCL 211.78t; Taking claims; Nelson v City of NY; Tyler v Hennepin Cnty, MN; Knick v Scott Twp, PA; Unjust enrichment; Whether untimely submission of notices of intention to claim remaining proceeds should be disregarded under MCL 600.2301; In re Petition of Muskegon Cnty Treasurer for Foreclosure; Foreclosing government unit (FGU)

Noting that most of respondents/claimants’ theories in this action over surplus proceeds from tax-foreclosure sales of real property were rejected in Muskegon Treasurer, and finding that all their new arguments fared no better, the court affirmed summary disposition for petitioner-county treasurer. Respondents appealed the trial court’s order denying their motions to reopen the case for the disbursement of the surplus proceeds at issue. The court found that none of their arguments called into question its holding in Muskegon Treasurer “that the statutory scheme set up by our Legislature satisfies due process on its face. [Their] arguments reveal that ‘what respondents really want is a different, i.e., postsale, process.’ . . . As long as ‘the statutory scheme adopted by our Legislature comports with due process—as MCL 211.78t does—whether such a scheme makes sense, or whether a “better” scheme could be devised, are policy questions for the Legislature, not legal ones for the judiciary.’” Respondents also claimed “petitioner’s notices were inadequate because they did not inform respondents of the new process for claiming remaining proceeds, nor did [they] advise respondents that missing the July 1 deadline would foreclose their claims for remaining proceeds. But the record reveals that the ‘Payment Deadline’ notice that petitioner furnished to respondents informed them that (1) the foreclosure sale of their property and payment of their total amount due to the FGU might result in remaining proceeds, (2) respondents had a right to file a claim for those remaining proceeds, (3) they had to file Form 5743 to claim an interest in the remaining proceeds, and (4) a Form 5743 had to be filed by [7/1/21]. Further, the ‘Notice of Foreclosure’ repeated the instructions on Form 5743 for submitting Form 5743. Additionally, the use of ‘must submit’ left no doubt that the requirements were mandatory, and the use of all capital letters, underlining, and bold font emphasized the mandatory character of the requirements. In sum, both the language and the format of the notices made clear that the reader ignored [them] at the risk of losing the ability to file a claim for surplus proceeds.”