Background
Dorcas Abayomi brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Oakland County, Michigan, after a tax-foreclosure sale of her property. She alleged that the County violated the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause by retaining sale proceeds exceeding the amount she owed.
The district court dismissed the claim under Howard v. Macomb County, a published Sixth Circuit decision addressing an identical challenge. Abayomi appealed, arguing only that Howard was wrongly decided; she did not dispute that she had failed to follow Michigan’s statutory procedure for claiming surplus proceeds.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Under Howard, when a former property owner fails to make a valid claim for surplus proceeds through the procedure established by Michigan Compiled Laws § 211.78t, the county’s subsequent retention of those proceeds does not constitute a taking.
The panel explained that Howard involved nearly identical facts and claims and therefore controlled Abayomi’s case. Because a published panel opinion binds later Sixth Circuit panels unless overruled or abrogated by the en banc court or the U.S. Supreme Court, the panel could not revisit Abayomi’s contention that Howard was wrongly decided.
Key Takeaways
- A Michigan property owner who does not properly invoke the state procedure for claiming tax-sale surplus proceeds cannot pursue a Takings Clause claim based on the county’s retention of those proceeds.
- The Sixth Circuit treated Howard v. Macomb County as controlling because Abayomi’s facts and constitutional theory were materially identical.
- A later Sixth Circuit panel remains bound by a published panel decision unless that precedent is overruled or abrogated en banc or by the Supreme Court.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that compliance with Michigan’s statutory surplus-proceeds procedure is essential for former owners seeking money remaining after a tax-foreclosure sale. Failing to submit a valid claim under that procedure forecloses a federal takings theory under binding Sixth Circuit precedent.
The opinion also underscores the limits of panel review: an argument that existing circuit precedent was wrongly decided generally must be directed to the en banc court or the Supreme Court, rather than to a subsequent three-judge panel.