-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

In re Petition of WAYNE COUNTY TREASURER 

for Foreclosure. 

WAYNE COUNTY TREASURER, 

 Petitioner-Appellee, 

UNPUBLISHED 

February 3, 2015 

v No. 316400 

Wayne Circuit Court 

ANGELA KARRIS and CONSTANTINE 

DROSIS, 

LC No. 11-007010-CH 

 Respondents-Appellants. 

Before: OWENS, P.J., and JANSEN and O’CONNELL, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Respondents appeal by leave granted the trial court’s order denying their motion for relief 

from a judgment of foreclosure.1 We affirm. 

 The parcel at issue in this case is jointly owned by respondents and is commonly known 

as 2920 W. Grand Blvd. Although it is one taxable parcel, two separate businesses are operated 

on the premises: Klassy C’s Salon and L.A. Insurance. Respondents lease the premises to these 

two businesses. Each business operates under a different address. The salon operates at 2920 

W. Grand Blvd., while L.A. Insurance uses the address 2922 W. Grand Blvd. 

 On June 14, 2011, the Wayne County Treasurer filed a petition for foreclosure for the 

nonpayment of property taxes. Respondents, as owners of the property, were served notice of 

the proceedings by certified mail, first class mail, publication, as well as personal service. On 

Sunday, November 27, 2011, an agent of the Wayne County Treasurer visited the property. 

Because the businesses were closed at that time, agent was unable to meet with any occupant of 

 

1 In re Petition of Wayne Co Treasurer for Foreclosure, unpublished order of the Court of 

Appeals, entered November 13, 2013 (Docket No. 316400). 
-2- 

the parcel. Consequently, the agent posted a copy of the foreclosure petition and the notices for 

the show cause hearing and judicial hearing on the door of Klassy C’s Salon. 

 The trial court ultimately entered a judgment of foreclosure and title to the property 

vested in the Wayne County Treasurer. The Wayne County Treasurer subsequently sold the 

property at auction. On March 6, 2013, respondents filed a motion for relief from judgment, 

arguing that the notice provisions of the General Property Tax Act (GPTA), MCL 211.1 et seq., 

were not properly satisfied and that the foreclosure of the property and subsequent sale violated 

due process. The trial court denied respondents’ motion for judgment relief based upon a finding 

that there had been no due-process violation. 

 On appeal, respondents contend that the trial court erred by ruling that the Wayne County 

Treasurer complied with the procedures outlined in the GPTA. In particular, they assert that the 

Wayne County Treasurer’s failure to mail notice to and personally serve an occupant of the 

parcel constituted a violation of due process. Respondents argue that because the Treasurer did 

not comply with the relevant statutory procedures, it was required to cancel its sale of the parcel. 

We disagree. 

 “A trial court’s decision on a motion for relief from judgment is reviewed for an abuse of 

discretion.” Yee v Shiawassee Co Bd of Comm’rs, 251 Mich App 379, 404; 651 NW2d 756 

(2002). Constitutional issues, such as whether due process was provided, are reviewed de novo. 

Sidun v Wayne Co Treasurer, 481 Mich 503, 508; 751 NW2d 453 (2008). 

 In In re Petition by Wayne Co Treasurer, 478 Mich 1, 8; 732 NW2d 458 (2007) 

(Perfecting Church), our Supreme Court stated: 

 If a property owner does not redeem the property or appeal the judgment 

of foreclosure within 21 days, then MCL 211.78k(6) deprives the circuit court of 

jurisdiction to alter the judgment of foreclosure. MCL 211.78k(6) vests absolute 

title in the foreclosing governmental unit, and if the taxpayer does not redeem the 

property or avail itself of the appeal process in subsection 7, then title “shall not

be stayed or held invalid . . . .” This language reflects a clear effort to limit the 

jurisdiction of courts so that judgments of foreclosure may not be modified other 

than through the limited procedures provided in the GPTA. The only possible 

remedy for such a property owner would be an action for monetary damages 

based on a claim that the property owner did not receive any notice. In the 

majority of cases, this regime provides an appropriate procedure for foreclosing 

property because the statute requires notices that are consistent with minimum 

due process standards. 

The Court held, however, that in cases where the foreclosing entity fails to provide 

constitutionally adequate notice, depriving the property owner of due process, the portion of the 

GPTA purporting to limit the circuit court’s jurisdiction to modify judgments of foreclosure is 

unconstitutional and unenforceable. Id. at 10-11. “ ‘[D]ue process requires the government to 

provide “notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties 

of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” ’ ” Id. 
-3- 

at 9 (citations omitted). “When there are multiple owners of a piece of property, due process 

entitles each owner to notice of foreclosure proceedings.” Sidun, 481 Mich at 512. 

 It is undisputed that respondents, as owners of the property, received constitutionally and 

statutorily sufficient notice of the tax foreclosure proceedings. However, respondents claim that 

the foreclosure proceedings were nonetheless improper because the occupants of the parcel, and 

specifically L.A. Insurance, were deprived of adequate notice. In support of their argument, 

respondents rely on MCL 211.78f(1) and (2), which require the foreclosing governmental unit to 

mail notice to the “occupant” of the property, as well as MCL 211.78i. 

 MCL 211.78f provides: 

 (1) Except as otherwise provided in section 79 for certified abandoned 

property, not later than the February 1 immediately succeeding the date that 

unpaid taxes were returned to the county treasurer for forfeiture, foreclosure, and 

sale under section 60a(1) or (2) or returned to the county treasurer as delinquent 

under section 78a, the county treasurer shall send a notice by certified mail, return 

receipt requested, to the person to whom a tax bill for property returned for 

delinquent taxes was last sent and, if different, to the person identified as the 

owner of property returned for delinquent taxes as shown on the current records 

of the county treasurer and to those persons identified under section 78e(2). The 

notice required under this subsection shall include all of the following: 

 (a) The date property on which those unpaid taxes were returned as 

delinquent will be forfeited to the county treasurer for the unpaid delinquent 

taxes, interest, penalties, and fees. 

 (b) A statement that a person who holds a legal interest in the property 

may lose that interest as a result of the forfeiture and subsequent foreclosure 

proceeding. 

 (c) A legal description or parcel number of the property and the street 

address of the property, if available. 

 (d) The person to whom the notice is addressed. 

 (e) The unpaid delinquent taxes, interest, penalties, and fees due on the 

property. 

 (f) A schedule of the additional interest, penalties, and fees that will accrue 

on the immediately succeeding March 1 pursuant to section 78g if those unpaid 

delinquent taxes, interest, penalties, and fees due on the property are not paid. 

 (g) A statement that unless those unpaid delinquent taxes, interest, 

penalties, and fees are paid on or before the March 31 immediately succeeding the 

entry in an uncontested case of a judgment foreclosing the property under section 

78k, absolute title to the property shall vest in the foreclosing governmental unit. 
-4- 

 (h) A statement of the person’s rights of redemption and notice that the 

rights of redemption will expire on the March 31 immediately succeeding the 

entry in an uncontested case of a judgment foreclosing the property under section 

78k. 

 (2) The notice required under subsection (1) shall also be mailed to the 

property by first-class mail, addressed to “occupant”, if the notice was not sent to 

the occupant of the property pursuant to subsection (1). 

 (3) A county treasurer may insert 1 or more additional notices in a 

newspaper published and circulated in the county in which the property is located, 

if there is one. If no newspaper is published in that county, publication may be 

made in a newspaper published and circulated in an adjoining county. 

 (4) The county treasurer may publish the street address, if available, of 

property subject to forfeiture under section 78g on the immediately succeeding 

March 1 for delinquent taxes or the street address, if available, of property subject 

to forfeiture under section 78g on the immediately succeeding March 1 for 

delinquent taxes and the name of the person to whom a tax bill for property 

returned for delinquent taxes was last sent and, if different, the name of the person 

identified as the owner of the property returned for delinquent taxes as shown on 

the current records of the county treasurer in a newspaper published and 

circulated in the county in which the property is located, if there is one. If no 

newspaper is published in that county, publication may be made in a newspaper 

published and circulated in an adjoining county. [Citations omitted.] 

 Under MCL 211.78i(1), the foreclosing governmental unit must initiate a search of the 

records enumerated in MCL 211.78i(6) to identify owners of a property interest in the property 

who are entitled to notice of the show cause hearing and the foreclosure hearing. The 

foreclosing governmental unit is also required to make a personal visit to each parcel of property 

forfeited to ascertain whether or not it is occupied. MCL 211.78i(3). If the property is occupied, 

the foreclosing governmental unit must attempt to personally serve notice on “a person 

occupying the property.” MCL 211.78i(3)(a). If the foreclosing governmental unit or its agent is 

unable to personally meet with an occupant, it must place notice on the property in a conspicuous 

manner. MCL 211.78i(3)(d). Further, if the foreclosing governmental unit is “unable to 

ascertain the address reasonably calculated to apprise the owners of a property interest entitled to 

notice” or is “unable to notify the owner of a property interest,” it may provide notice by 

publication. MCL 211.78i(5). “Before the hearing on the petition, the foreclosing governmental 

unit must provide proof of service of the notices required under the statute, as well as proof of 

the personal visit to the property and publication.” Perfecting Church, 478 Mich at 6, citing 

MCL 211.78k(1). 

 Respondents contend that the Wayne County Treasurer failed to comply with MCL 

211.78f(1) and (2), as well as MCL 211.78i. There is no evidence that the notice required under 

MCL 211.78f(1) was mailed to an “occupant” as required by MCL 211.78f(2). And although the 

Wayne County Treasurer appears to have made a personal visit as required by MCL 211.78i(3), 

it occurred on a Sunday and no notice was personally served on any occupant at that time. 
-5- 

 The Wayne County Treasurer argues that because the occupants’ leases were not 

recorded, they were not entitled to the same notice as owners of a property interest, such as 

respondents. Respondents admit that the occupants’ leases were not recorded. However, they 

contend that the leasehold interest of the occupant of 2922 W. Grand Blvd., L.A. Insurance, 

would have been discovered if the records listed in MCL 211.78i(6) had been properly searched. 

Respondents attached tax records from the City of Detroit showing L.A. Insurance’s interest. 

Thus, although the lease was not recorded, it appears that the interest was identifiable and L.A. 

Insurance was entitled to notice by certified mail under MCL 211.78i(1). Such notice was not 

provided. 

 The Wayne County Treasurer’s agent made a personal visit to the property, as required 

by MCL 211.78i(3). Although the agent did not personally serve any occupants, the agent 

posted a notice on the building. Respondents argue that the personal visit was not sufficient 

because it occurred a Sunday afternoon of a holiday weekend and the agent only attempted to 

visit 2920 W. Grand Blvd. With regard to the failure to visit both addresses, we note that the 

records, petition, and judgment of foreclosure list only 2920 W. Grand Blvd. as the address of 

the property being foreclosed. Moreover, the GPTA requires only that “a” person occupying the 

property be served, not all occupants. MCL 211.78i(3)(a). Thus, the personal visit was not 

inadequate merely because the agent only visited 2920 W. Grand Blvd., and not 2922 W. Grand 

Blvd. We do question whether the timing of the visit was adequate, as it was done on a Sunday 

afternoon and does not appear to have been reasonably calculated to attempt to personally serve 

an occupant. Nevertheless, even if it the visit was not adequate, the notice was posted at 2920 

W. Grand Blvd., and the Wayne County Treasurer made notice by publication. See MCL 

211.78i(5). 

 We conclude that despite any violations of MCL 211.78f and MCL 211.78i in this case, 

the trial court properly denied respondent’s motion to set aside the judgment of foreclosure. 

MCL 211.78i(9) provides: 

 The owner of a property interest who has been properly served with a 

notice of the show cause hearing under section 78j and the foreclosure hearing 

under section 78k and who failed to redeem the property as provided under this 

act shall not assert any of the following: 

 (a) That notice was insufficient or inadequate on the grounds that some 

other owner of a property interest was not also served. 

 (b) That the redemption period provided under this act was extended in 

any way on the grounds that some other owner of a property interest was not also 

served. 

Respondents were properly served with notice. Thus, respondents cannot claim that notice was 

insufficient because the occupants were not served. MCL 211.78i(9)(a). Moreover, MCL 

211.78i(10) provides: 

 The failure of the foreclosing governmental unit to comply with any 

provision of this section shall not invalidate any proceeding under this act if the 
-6- 

owner of a property interest or a person to whom a tax deed was issued is 

accorded the minimum due process required under the state constitution of 1963 

and the constitution of the United States. 

Accordingly, even if the Wayne County Treasurer failed to comply with the provisions of MCL 

211.78i, the proceedings were valid because respondents were provided actual notice and due 

process was satisfied. As our Supreme Court has observed, “[b]ecause the [GPTA’s] notice 

provisions provide more notice than is required to satisfy due process, the constitution does not 

require strict compliance with all the statutory notice requirements.” Perfecting Church, 478 

Mich at 11 n 19. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying respondents’ motion for 

relief from judgment and refusing to cancel the sale. 

 Affirmed. 

/s/ Donald S. Owens 

/s/ Kathleen Jansen 

/s/ Peter D. O'Connell