Wayne County Chief Executive v. Mayor of City of Detroit, Docket No. 166961

• Decision Date: 31 May 1995
• Docket Number: Docket No. 166961
• Citation: 535 N.W.2d 199,211 Mich.App. 243
• Parties: WAYNE COUNTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE, Wayne County Prosecuting Attorney, West Detroit Inter-Faith Community Organization Livernois Seven Mile Co-op, New Hope Nonprofit Housing Corp., Boston Edison Community Group, Hubbard Farms Community Group and Michigan Avenue Community Organization, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MAYOR OF the CITY OF DETROIT, Treasurer of the City of Detroit, Director of the Community Economic Development Department, City of Detroit Assessor's Office, and City of Detroit, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 199

535 N.W.2d 199

211 Mich.App. 243

WAYNE COUNTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE, Wayne County Prosecuting Attorney, West Detroit Inter-Faith Community Organization Livernois Seven Mile Co-op, New Hope Nonprofit Housing Corp., Boston Edison Community Group, Hubbard Farms Community Group and Michigan Avenue Community Organization Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MAYOR OF the CITY OF DETROIT, Treasurer of the City of Detroit, Director of the Community Economic Development Department, City of Detroit Assessor's Office, and City of Detroit, Defendants-Appellants.

Docket No. 166961.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Jan. 10, 1995, at Detroit.

Decided April 5, 1995.

Approved for Publication May 31, 1995, at 9:00 a.m.

Released for Publication Aug. 3, 1995.

Saul A. Green, Wayne County Corp. Counsel, and Patricia Irving-Cwiek, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Detroit, for plaintiffs.

Donald Pailen, City of Detroit Corp. Counsel, and Perry L. Yun, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Detroit, for defendants.

Before CONNOR, P.J., and WAHLS and SAAD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendants appeal as of right from the circuit court's writ of mandamus (1) canceling delinquent taxes on all properties in the City of Detroit that had become fully vested in the State of Michigan and subsequently sold to the various plaintiffs and (2) removing the properties from the city's assessment rolls. We affirm.

By law, the State of Michigan acquires absolute title to all tax-reverted properties that are not redeemed and not purchased at an auction. M.C.L. § 211.67; M.S.A. § 7.112. Once this occurs, all taxes, special assessments, and liens that are charged against the property must be canceled. M.C.L. § 211.67a(2); M.S.A. § 7.112(1)(2). The state and its inferior taxing units are required to bear the loss on such taxes. Id.

After acquiring title to several properties in the City of Detroit, the state sold them to Wayne County. Wayne County then sold some properties to the plaintiff community organizations for a nominal fee. In turn, these organizations agreed to rehabilitate the abandoned homes under a program developed by the county. The city billed the organizations and the county for outstanding taxes and refused to expunge the tax liens. Plaintiffs initiated an action against defendants, seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, which the circuit court granted.

On appeal, defendants contend that as a home rule city, the City of Detroit has sovereign power under the Michigan Constitution to levy taxes as an independent agent, Const1963, art 7, §§ 21 and 22. Therefore, defendants argue, because the city's charter determines the procedures for collection of city taxes, the city is not subject to § 67a of the general property tax act. We disagree.

First, we note that defendants have overlooked that the powers rendered to the city under the constitution are subject to laws enacted by the Legislature:

Each city and village is granted power to levy other taxes for public purposes, subject to limitations and prohibitions provided by this constitution or by law. [Const1963, art 7, § 21. Emphasis added.]

Each such city and village shall have power to adopt resolutions and ordinances relating to its municipal concerns, property, and government, subject to the constitution and law.... [Const1963, art 7, § 22. Emphasis added.]

Moreover, it has been held that a home rule city cannot enact a charter provision that contravenes a statute. Marks v. Battle Creek, 358 Mich. 114, 117, 99 N.W.2d 587 (1959); Bostedor v. Eaton Rapids, 273 Mich. 426, 429, 263 N.W. 416 (1935). Accordingly, we believe that the trial court correctly determined that the City of Detroit is an inferior taxing unit subject to M.C.L. § 211.67a(2); M.S.A. § 7.112(1)(2).

Nor do we agree with defendants that the term "inferior taxing unit" is ambiguous on its face and therefore renders the statutory provision inapplicable to the city. The two cases cited by defendants, Hoffman v. Otto, 277 Mich. 437, 269 N.W. 225 (1936), and Detroit v. Sitter, 288 Mich. 505, 285 N.W. 40 (1939), do not support their position. In these cases, the Supreme Court held that a particular statute in effect at the time did not plainly express that the City of Detroit must redeem property to maintain a tax lien upon properties that had been purchased by the plaintiffs from the state. ¹ The Supreme Court did not hold, as defendants imply, that the term used in the statute, "city or political subdivision," was ambiguous. On the other hand, M.C.L. § 211.67a(2); M.S.A. § 7.112(1)(2) specifically provides that all liens shall be canceled after unredeemed property is conveyed to the state and that the state and its inferior taxing units shall bear the loss of those liens.

Defendants also claim that M.C.L. § 211.67a; M.S.A. § 7.112(1) irreconcilably conflicts with M.C.L. § 211.40; M.S.A. § 7.81, which provides in relevant part:

Notwithstanding any provisions in the charter of any city or village to the contrary, all taxes shall become a debt due to the township, city, village and county from the owner or person otherwise to be assessed on the tax day provided for in sections 2 and 13 of this act ... and the lien for such amounts, and for all interest and charges thereon, shall continue until payment thereof.

We disagree that the two statutes are irreconcilable. M.C.L. § 211.40; M.S.A. § 7.81 declares that a tax lien shall arise on a designated tax day and continue until the outstanding tax is paid by the owner of the property. This provision clearly applies before foreclosure on the property. On the other hand, M.C.L. § 211.67a; ...