In re Tuscola Cnty. Treasurer for Foreclosure, Docket No. 328847.
| Decision Date | 10 November 2016 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 328847. |
| Citation | 895 N.W.2d 569,317 Mich.App. 688 |
| Parties | In re PETITION OF TUSCOLA COUNTY TREASURER FOR FORECLOSURE. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Peter Goodstein, Flint, for the Tuscola County Treasurer.
Outside Legal Counsel PLC, Hemlock (by Philip L. Ellison ) for Jennifer A. Dupuis.
Before: JANSEN, P.J., and MURPHY and RIORDAN, JJ.
Petitioner, the Tuscola County Treasurer, appeals as of right the order granting respondent, Jennifer A. Dupuis, conditional relief from an earlier judgment of foreclosure of her property. Respondent cross-appeals that same order on the basis that MCL 211.78k(5)(g) is unconstitutional. We reverse and vacate.
This case arises from the foreclosure of respondent's property, which is located in Arbela Township. The property became delinquent on property taxes for 2011 and 2012. On January 23, 2014, petitioner granted respondent a financial-hardship deferral that required respondent to pay the 2011 taxes by June 1, 2014, and to pay $300 a month for the 2012 taxes. However, respondent did not pay the 2011 or 2012 taxes in accordance with the financial-hardship deferral.
On May 14, 2014, petitioner filed a petition of foreclosure for properties with unpaid property taxes for 2012 and prior years, and respondent's property was incorporated in the petition. Respondent was provided with notice regarding a January 21, 2015 show-cause hearing and a February 2, 2015 foreclosure hearing. Respondent does not argue that she did not receive these notices. Petitioner also filed with the court proof of publication and proof of personal visits to the property.
Following a hearing on February 2, 2015, the circuit court entered a final judgment of foreclosure on the property. The judgment ordered that fee simple title would vest in petitioner on March 31, 2015, and respondent would lose all rights of redemption, unless the delinquent taxes were paid before that date. The order further provided:
This judgment is a final order with respect to the property affected by this Judgment and except as provided in MCL 211.78k(7) shall not be modified, stayed, or held invalid after March 31, 2015 unless there is a contested case concerning a parcel in which event this final judgment, with respect to the parcel involved in the contested case, shall not be modified, stayed, or held invalid 21 days after the entry of the judgment in the contested case.
Another notice was sent to respondent, informing her that she had to pay the delinquent taxes by March 31, 2015, to redeem the property. Respondent does not challenge that she received the notice. Respondent did not pay the delinquent taxes by March 31, 2015. The auction of the property was scheduled for August 26, 2015.
On August 3, 2015, respondent moved to conditionally set aside the judgment of foreclosure pursuant to MCR 2.612(C)(1)(f). Respondent explained in an affidavit that the foreclosure was the result of past hard times and a misunderstanding with township officials. Specifically, respondent stated that she fell on hard times after her husband broke his back and that a township board member told her that she needed to pay the delinquent taxes by May 2015. According to respondent, she submitted $6,000 to petitioner in early May 2015, but petitioner returned the money to her by mail about a month later. Respondent stated that she had the necessary funds to pay the entire tax deficiency in full, including penalties, costs, and expenses, and she had finally located an attorney who could help her.
Petitioner responded on August 6, 2015, contending that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction because the judgment of foreclosure was entered, the redemption period had expired, and respondent was not claiming a denial of due process. Petitioner further argued that, even if the court had jurisdiction, it should not grant relief under MCR 2.612(C)(1)(f) because respondent's position "is solely the result of her actions and inactions."
During a hearing on August 10, 2015, the circuit court granted respondent's motion, stating that it had "equitable jurisdiction," and that granting the motion was "the appropriate thing to do." The court explained that it "may be wrong" on the jurisdictional issue but that it preferred to err on the side of doing the appropriate thing. The court then entered an order granting respondent conditional relief from the judgment of foreclosure and directing petitioner to convey the property back to respondent conditioned on respondent's payment of all delinquent taxes, interest, penalties, and fees by August 20, 2015. Respondent paid the taxes, interest, penalties, and fees within the specified time frame, and no auction occurred.
We review de novo whether the circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction to enter the order granting conditional relief. In re Wayne Co. Treasurer Petition for Foreclosure of Certain Lands for Unpaid Prop. Taxes, 265 Mich.App. 285, 290, 698 N.W.2d 879 (2005). Whether a statute is unconstitutional because it violates the separation-of-powers doctrine is a question of law, which we review de novo. See Phillips v. Mirac, Inc., 470 Mich. 415, 422, 685 N.W.2d 174 (2004) ; Okrie v. Michigan, 306 Mich.App. 445, 453, 857 N.W.2d 254 (2014).
Petitioner contends that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to enter the order granting respondent conditional relief from the judgment of foreclosure. We agree.
"Jurisdiction is a court's power to act and its authority to hear and decide a case." Riverview v. Sibley Limestone,
270 Mich.App. 627, 636, 716 N.W.2d 615 (2006). "[A] court must take notice when it lacks jurisdiction regardless of whether the parties raised the issue." In re Knox Complaint, 255 Mich.App. 454, 457, 660 N.W.2d 777 (2003). A circuit court's subject-matter jurisdiction is conferred by statute as follows:
Circuit courts have original jurisdiction to hear and determine all civil claims and remedies, except where exclusive jurisdiction is given in the constitution or by statute to some other court or where the circuit courts are denied jurisdiction by the constitution or statutes of this state. [MCL 600.605.]
"Thus, circuit courts are presumed to have subject-matter jurisdiction unless jurisdiction is expressly prohibited or given to another court by constitution or statute." Wayne Co. Treasurer, 265 Mich.App. at 291, 698 N.W.2d 879.
At issue in this case is the circuit court's ability to conditionally set aside a judgment of foreclosure entered pursuant to the General Property Tax Act (GPTA), MCL 211.1 et seq. MCL 211.78k(5) provides, in part:
MCL 211.78k(6) provides, in part:
Except as otherwise provided in subsection (5)(c) and (e), fee simple title to property set forth in a petition for foreclosure filed under [MCL 211.78h ] on which forfeited delinquent taxes, interest, penalties, and fees are not paid on or before the March 31 immediately succeeding the entry of a judgment foreclosing the property under this section, or in a contested case within 21 days of the entry of a judgment foreclosing the property under this section, shall vest absolutely in the foreclosing governmental unit, and the foreclosing governmental unit shall have absolute title to the property .... The foreclosing governmental unit's title is not subject to any recorded or unrecorded lien and shall not be stayed or held invalid except as provided in subsection (7) or (9). [Emphasis added.]
MCL 211.78k(7) adds that "[t]he foreclosing governmental unit or a person claiming to have a property interest under [MCL 211.78i ] in property foreclosed under this section may appeal the circuit court's order or the circuit court's judgment foreclosing property to the court of appeals," and clarifies that "[t]he circuit court's judgment foreclosing property shall be stayed until the court of appeals has reversed, modified, or affirmed that judgment."
MCR 2.612(C)(1), the court rule under which the circuit court granted conditional relief, provides in relevant part:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shores Home Owners Ass'n v. Wizinsky
...jurisdiction to hear all civil claims and remedies unless the exclusive jurisdiction is provided by constitution or statute to another court. Id.; see also MCL 600.605. the trial court did, in fact, have jurisdiction to hear this civil claim. However, the trial court's authority to review t......
-
Rose v. Oakland Cnty. Treasurer
...court does not have jurisdiction to modify or vacate its judgment of foreclosure." In re Petition of Tuscola County Treasurer for Foreclosure, 317 Mich. App. 688, 699, 895 N.W.2d 569, 575 (2016) (citing In re Treasurer of Wayne County for Foreclosure, 478 Mich. 1, 10, 732 N.W.2d 458, 463 (2......
-
Maple Manor Rehab Ctr., LLC v. Dep't of Treasury
...a lower court has subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo. In re Tuscola Co. Treasurer , 317 Mich. App. 688, 694, 895 N.W.2d 569 (2016). "[A lower] court's decision on a motion for summary disposition based on MCR 2.116(C)(4) [is reviewed] de novo to......
-
Preston v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury
...title in the County after the expiration of the statutory redemption period. See In re Petition of Tuscola County Treasurer for Foreclosure, 317 Mich. App. 688, 700, 895 N.W.2d 569, 575 (2016) ("[B]ecause there was no due-process violation, the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to mod......