-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Petitioner-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED February 3, 2015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: O WENS , P.J., and J ANSEN and O’C ONNELL , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

. Respondents appeal by l eave granted the tri al court’s order de nying their motion for relief from a judgment of foreclosure. 1 We affirm.

The parcel at issue in this case is jointly owned by responden ts 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. Respond ents lease the premises to these two businesses. Each business operates under a different addre ss. The salon operates at 2920 W. Grand Blvd., while L.A. Insur ance uses the address 2922 W. G rand 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 pr operty, were served notice of the proceedings by certified mail, first class mail, publicatio n, as well as personal service. On Sunday, November 27, 2011, an age nt of the Wayne County Treasur er visited the property. Because the businesses were closed at that time, agent was unab le 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1 In re Petition of Wayne Co Treasurer for Foreclosure , unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered November 13, 2013 (Docket No. 316400).-2- the parcel.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 forec losure petition and the notices for the show cause hearing and judi cial hearing on the door of Klas sy C’s Salon.

The trial court ultimately entered a judgment of foreclosure a nd title to the property vested in the Wayne County Treasurer. The Wayne County Treasur er subsequently sold the property at auction. On March 6, 2013, respondents filed a mot ion for relief from judgment, arguing that the notice provision s of the General Property Tax Act (GPTA), MCL 211.1 et seq. , were not properly satisfied and that the foreclosure of the pro perty and subsequent sale violated due process. The trial court de nied respondents’ motion for ju dgment relief base d upon a finding that there had been no due-process violation.

On appeal, respondents contend th at the trial court erred by r uling that the Wayne County Treasurer complied with the procedures outlined in the GPTA. I n particular, they assert that the Wayne County Treasurer’s failure to mail notice to and personal ly serve an occupant of the parcel constituted a violation of due process. Respondents arg ue that because the Treasurer did not comply with the relevant statutory procedures, it was requi red 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 judg ment 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 cl ear 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 monetar y damages based on a claim that the prope rty owner did not receive any no tice. In the majority of cases, this regime provides an appropriate procedur e for foreclosing property because the statute req uires notices that are consiste nt with minimum due process standards.

The Court held, however, that in cases where the foreclosing en tity 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 mo dify judgments of foreclosure is unconstitutional and unenforceable. Id . at 10-11. “ ‘[D]ue process requires the government to provide “notice reasonably calcu lated, under all the circumstan ces, 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 th at respondents, as owners of the property, received constitutionally and statutorily sufficient notice of the tax foreclosure proceeding s. However, respondents claim that the foreclosure proceedings were nonetheless improper because t he 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 f oreclosing governmental unit to mail notice to the “occupant” of the property, as well as MCL 2 11.78i.

MCL 211.78f provides:

(1) Except as otherwise provide d in section 79 for certified a bandoned property, not later than the Febr uary 1 immediately succeeding the date that unpaid taxes were returned to th e county treasurer for forfeitu re, foreclosure, and sale under section 60a(1) or (2 ) or returned to the county trea surer as delinquent under section 78a, the county trea surer shall send a notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the person to whom a tax bill for propert y 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 s ection 78e(2). The notice required under this subsecti on shall include all of the following:

(a) The date property on which those unpaid taxes were returne d as delinquent will be forfeited to the county treasurer for the un paid delinquent taxes, interest, penalties, and fees.

(b) A statement that a person who holds a legal interest in th e property may lose that interest as a result of the forfeiture and subseq uent foreclosure proceeding.

(c) A legal description or parcel number of the property and t he street address of the property, if available.

(d) The person to whom th e notice is addressed.

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

(f) A schedule of the additio nal interest, penalties, and fees that will accrue on the immediately succeeding Ma rch 1 pursuant to section 78g i f those unpaid delinquent taxes, interest, pe nalties, and fees due on the prop erty are not paid.

(g) A statement that unless those unpaid delinquent taxes, int erest, penalties, and fees are paid on or before the March 31 immediat ely succeeding the entry in an uncontested case of a judgment foreclosing the prop erty under section 78k, absolute title to the property shall vest in the foreclosi ng governmental unit.-4- (h) A statement of the person’s rights of redemption and notic e that the rights of redemption will expire on the March 31 immediately su cceeding the entry in an uncontested case of a judgment foreclosing the prop erty under section 78k.

(2) The notice required under subsection (1) shall also be mai led to the property by first-class mail, addressed to “occupant”, if the n otice was not sent to the occupant of the propert y pursuant to subsection (1).

(3) A county treasurer may insert 1 or more additional notices in a newspaper published and circulat ed in the county in which the p roperty is located, if there is one. If no newspaper is published in that county, publication may be made in a newspaper published a nd circulated in an adjoining co unty.

(4) The county treasurer may publish the street address, if av ailable, of property subject to forfeiture under section 78g on the immedia tely succeeding March 1 for delinquent taxes or the street address, if availabl e, of property subject to forfeiture under section 78g on the immediately succeeding M arch 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 count y treasurer in a newspaper publ ished and circulated in the county in which the property is located, if t here is one. If no newspaper is published in that county, publication may be made in a newspaper published and circulated in a n adjoining county. [Citations om itted.]

Under MCL 211.78i(1), the foreclosing governmental unit must i nitiate a search of the records enumerated in MCL 211.78i(6) to identify owners of a pr operty interest in the property who are entitled to notice of t he show cause hearing and the fo reclosure hearing. The foreclosing governmental unit is also required to make a person al 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 uni t must attempt to personally se rve notice on “a person occupying the property.” MCL 211. 78i(3)(a). If the foreclosin g governmental unit or its agent is unable to personally meet with an occupant, it must place notic e on the property in a conspicuous manner. MCL 211.78i(3)(d). Further, if the foreclosing govern mental unit is “unable to ascertain the address reasonably calculated to apprise the owne rs of a property interest entitled to notice” or is “unable to notify the owner of a property interes t,” it may provide notice by publication. MCL 211.78i(5). “Before the hearing on the petit ion, the foreclosing governmental unit must provide proof of service of the notices required unde r the statute, as well as proof of the personal visit to the p roperty 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 eviden ce that the notice required under MCL 211.78f(1) was mailed t o an “occupant” as required by MCL 2 11.78f(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 o f a property interest, such as respondents. Respondents admit th at the occupants’ leases were not recorded. However, they contend that the leasehold inte rest 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 showi ng 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 21 1.78i(1). Such notice was not provided.

The Wayne County Treasurer’s agent made a personal visit to th e 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 pe rsonal 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 o f foreclosure list only 2920 W . Grand Blvd. as the address of the property being foreclosed. Moreover, the GPTA requires onl y that “a” person occupying the property be served, not all oc cupants. MCL 211.78i(3)(a). Thu s, 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 adequ ate, as it was done on a Sunday afternoon and does not appear to have been reasonably calculate d to attempt to personally serve an occupant. Nevertheless, eve n if it the visit was not adequa te, the notice was posted at 2920 W. Grand Blvd., and the Wayne County Treasurer made notice by p ublication. 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 asid e 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 fore closure hearing under section 78k and who failed to redeem the property as prov ided under this act shall not assert a ny of the following:

(a) That notice was insufficien t or inadequate on the grounds that some other owner of a property int erest was not also served.

(b) That the redemption period provided under this act was ext ended in any way on the grounds that some other owner of a property inte rest was not also served.

Respondents were properly served with notice. Thus, respondent s cannot claim that notice was insufficient because the occupants were not served. MCL 211.78 i(9)(a). Moreover, MCL 211.78i(10) provides:

The failure of the foreclosing governmental unit to comply wit h any provision of this section shall not invalidate any proceeding u nder 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 const itution of 1963 and the constitution of the United States.

Accordingly, even if the Wayne County Treasurer failed to compl y with the provisions of MCL 211.78i, the proceedings were valid because respondents were pr ovided 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 require ments.” 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 ref using to cancel the sale.

Affirmed.

/s/ Donald S. Owens /s/ Kathleen Jansen /s/ Peter D. O'Connell