Quiet title; Jurisdiction to set aside the foreclosure; Notice; MCL 211.78i(7); Discovery; Surplus proceeds; MCL 211.78t

The court concluded that “the trial court did not err by granting summary disposition to the county defendants on plaintiff’s claims to quiet title and for inverse condemnation.” However, it reversed “the trial court’s grant of summary disposition to the county defendants regarding plaintiff’s claim for surplus proceeds and remand[ed] to the trial court to make specific findings whether [defendant-County Treasurer] provided plaintiff with constitutionally adequate notice of its right to claim surplus proceeds in accordance with MCL 211.78t.” Plaintiff argued “that the trial court erred by concluding that it did not have jurisdiction to set aside the judgment of foreclosure because genuine issues of material fact exist whether the Wayne County Treasurer’s attempts to provide notice were constitutionally sufficient and whether the Wayne County Treasurer failed to take reasonable additional steps to provide notice.” Plaintiff contended “that the notices did not meet minimum due process standards because two of the certified mailings were not delivered and notice was not sent to plaintiff’s Florida address.” Plaintiff further argued “that the foreclosure notices did not satisfy due process regarding the deprivation of proceeds from the tax sale.” The court found no merit in this argument. The record did “not reflect that plaintiff’s Florida address, or any other address, was filed with LARA at any time before the foreclosure proceedings.” The court found that although “some of the statutory information was missing from the notices, the Wayne County Treasurer satisfied the minimum constitutional due process requirements by following the statutory scheme and notifying plaintiff of the show-cause and foreclosure hearings.” It also rejected “plaintiff’s argument that summary disposition was prematurely granted because it did not have an opportunity to engage in discovery.” The court concluded that “none of the hearing notices contained the statutory language informing plaintiff of its right to claim surplus proceeds in accordance with MCL 211.78t. However, the language was included in the certificates of forfeiture filed with the register of deeds several months before the foreclosure hearing.” After the “judgment of foreclosure was entered, the Wayne County Treasurer purportedly mailed notices to each property address advising plaintiff of its right to claim surplus proceeds. But there is no proof of mailing in the record.” The only “evidence that plaintiff was provided notice of its right to claim surplus proceeds was the statement included on the certificates of foreclosure. However, the trial court did not analyze whether this was constitutionally adequate notice because it concluded that it did not ‘have jurisdiction to do anything but grant’” the motion. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.