City of Detroit v. John J. Blake Realty Co., Docket No. 70164
Citation | 376 N.W.2d 114,144 Mich.App. 432 |
Decision Date | 12 November 1985 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 70164 |
Parties | CITY OF DETROIT, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John J. Blake and JOHN J. BLAKE REALTY CO., Defendants, and Metro Improvement Corporation, a Michigan corporation, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan (US) |
Donald Pailen, Corp. Counsel, and Dragan Stojanov, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.
James D. Jackson, Detroit, for Metro Improvement Corp.
Before J.H. GILLIS, P.J., and KELLY and MULLEN *, JJ.
On May 27, 1982, plaintiff obtained a default judgment against the defendants, John J. Blake and John J. Blake Realty Co., in plaintiff's tax foreclosure action vis-a-vis property located within the city limits. The third-party defendant, Metro Improvement Corporation ("Metro"), had intervened in the case and sought to have the default judgment set aside because the city failed to give Metro proper notice of the tax foreclosure proceedings. The basis of Metro's request was that it was the land contract vendee of the subject property and its interest was of record. Upon the trial court's denial of this motion, Metro appeals as of right. We reverse.
On November 5, 1981, the city instituted this foreclosure action alleging that property taxes on the subject parcel had not been paid since 1976. It proceeded under Detroit Charter Sec. 8-403, which provides that "the [city] treasurer shall give reasonable notice to all persons who are liable for delinquent real property taxes". There is a 60-day redemption period following entry of judgment. Likewise, "[t]he judgment when final shall be conclusive evidence of the City's title in fee simple". Id.
The city served a copy of the complaint upon defendant Blake, who was the "record taxpayer for the property", and mailed a copy thereof to the "Occupant" of the property at issue. However, as stated in Metro's motion to set aside the default judgment, the property is the site of "an apartment building". Thus, Metro never personally received a copy of the complaint because Metro's office was located at another address which appeared prominently on the land contract which was on file within the county records.
The question on appeal is whether the notice given in this case satisfied due process requirements where the city readily had access to information about Metro's land contract vendee's interest in the property and Metro's business address.
In Dow v. Michigan, 396 Mich. 192, 240 N.W.2d 450 (1976), the Court found that a person "who [is] purchasing the property on land contract" is "an owner of a significant interest in property" such that this person "[must] be given proper notice" of the tax foreclosure proceedings. Id., 204, 196, 240 N.W.2d 450.
Turning to the nature of the required notice, the Court, in Dow, stated:
396 Mich. 192, 210-211, 240 N.W.2d 450. (Emphasis added; footnote omitted.)
The Court also set forth the following guidelines which are, incidentally, selectively cited by plaintiff:
Id., 212, 240 N.E.2d 450. (Footnote omitted.)
The United States Supreme Court recently held that publication of notice of a tax sale and posting of same in the county courthouse did not satisfy the due process rights of a mortgagee of the property. Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791, 103 S.Ct. 2706, 77 L.Ed.2d 180 (1983). "Personal service or mailed notice is required even though sophisticated creditors have means at their disposal to discover whether property taxes have not been paid * * *." Id., 462...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ligon v. City of Detroit
...here, a party's knowledge of a tax delinquency does not equate to notice of a foreclosure proceeding. Detroit v. John J. Blake Realty Co., 144 Mich.App. 432, 437, 376 N.W.2d 114 (1984). Even if Ligon had received constitutionally adequate notice, after the tax foreclosure proceedings were c......
-
Buckley Land Corp. v. Department of Natural Resources
...defective tax sales are deemed void. Dow v. Michigan, 396 Mich. 192, 208-212, 240 N.W.2d 450 (1976); Detroit v. John J Blake Realty Co., 144 Mich.App. 432, 437, 376 N.W.2d 114 (1984). However, this was not so at the time of sale to the State of Michigan, and the county-publication notice pr......