Tax foreclosure; Notice; Due process; Sidun v Wayne Cnty Treasurer; The General Property Tax Act (GPTA); MCL 211.78i(1)-(6); Motion for relief from judgment; Jurisdiction to modify a judgment of foreclosure; MCL 211.78k

The court held that plaintiff-Treasurer’s notice attempts satisfied due process, that MCL 211.78k’s plain language controlled, and that the trial court properly found that it did not have jurisdiction to modify or vacate the foreclosure judgment. Thus, the court affirmed summary disposition for plaintiff. Defendant-property owner (Cook) contended that “the Treasurer’s efforts to notify her of the tax foreclosure proceedings were insufficient to satisfy due process.” But the court concluded that, in addition to satisfying the GPTA’s notice provisions, the Treasurer’s notice attempts “were reasonably calculated to apprise Cook of the action and provide her with a chance to present any objections.” The record showed that the Treasurer mailed her “notice of the pending foreclosure proceedings by certified mail and first-class mail to the postal addresses shown on” a 2020 quitclaim deed, including her home address. The certified mail notice was sent on 12/4/23, and the first-class mail notice was sent a month later. Further, notice was “‘placed in a conspicuous manner on the’” property after a personal visit, and twice published in the Detroit Legal News. While Cook asserted that the certified mail did not reach her home, there was no evidence suggesting it “was returned as unclaimed to the Treasurer, so the Treasurer was not required to make additional reasonable steps to provide notice.” The court added that, even if it “were to assume the mailed notice was not delivered for some unexplained reason, due process did not require that Cook receive actual notice. Regardless, the notice was also sent by first-class mail, and there is a presumption that a document that is properly addressed and placed in the mail will reach its destination.” As to her claim that the personal visit notice was insufficient, the affidavit of the person who made the “visit indicated that the property was occupied and Cook averred in her own affidavit that it was occupied by her ‘family member.’ Under these circumstances, notice posted conspicuously on an occupied property appears reasonably calculated to provide notice to the owner.” While Cook asserted “the trial court treated statutory compliance as dispositive, the record” showed that she “was provided with notice that was reasonably calculated to inform her of the foreclosure proceedings.”